YEAR OF OUR LORD 1250
PANTALEON, DEACON OF CONSTANTINOPLE
TREATISE AGAINST THE ERRORS OF THE GREEKS
Published from a manuscript codex of the Bavarian library through the studies of Petrus Stevartius of Liège, professor of sacred theology, and edited in volume IV of the *Lectiones Antiquæ* of Canisius. Reprinted by Basnage.
STEWARTIUS TO THE READER.
We are reprinting this treatise, which we found in the Bavarian library without the specific name of an author. Therefore, we shall not hazard a guess regarding the author. The Bavarian codex was extremely corrupt. Wherefore, do not be surprised if this book also comes into your hands uncorrected. It is better to have something than nothing. Perhaps another may encounter a more accurate exemplar and perform what we were unable to perform. In the meantime, enjoy these pages for what they are, and favor our labor of illuminating orthodox antiquity with your support. Since the innovators of this present time studiously bring to light whatever papers were once written by the Greeks or Latins against the chair of Peter by unsound minds—not worrying at all about the elegance or inelegance of the language—it is not right that we should allow those things which were written in favor of the Roman pontiff, the successor of Saint Peter, even in a rough style, to be consumed by moths and bookworms, and that we should not set against the refuse of heretics and schismatics solid refutations, even if they lack the polish of style. Farewell.
* Concerning this Pantaleon, or an older namesake, see Fabricius with the notes of Harles in our volume XCVIII, col. 1239. There exist there, by Pantaleon—whoever he may be—the *Homily on the Holy Lights*, from Ducæus; likewise two *Homilies on the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ*, from Combefis; the *Encomium of Michael the Archangel*, from the same; and a *Homily on the Exaltation of the Cross*, from Gretser. The following writings complete the series of those which are attributed to Pantaleon and which perhaps it would be better to collect into a single fascicle. Editor of the Fathers.
OBSERVATIONS OF JACQUES BASNAGE ON THE TRACTATE AGAINST THE GREEKS
This tractate is attributed to Pantaleon; the editors of the most recent *Bibliotheca Patrum* seem to have held this view in their admonition to the reader in Volume XXVI, where they deal with John Caleca. Ciampinus held the same view, although he wavers elsewhere, in that he cited the tractate as anonymous. In truth, these words are read at the end of the work, indicating the author, as it appears at first glance: "I, Pantaleon, when I was there, in Constantinople, where this was done, for this reason made it Memorable."
Now, Pantaleon was a deacon and chartophylax of the Church of Constantinople, and from the fact that it is said in Gretser, who published his tractate on the exaltation of the cross, that he was a presbyter of a Byzantine monastery, Combefis conjectures that he became a presbyter of a certain monastery from being a deacon. The same Combefis attributes to him the *Orations on the Transfiguration of the Lord*. Although he has some suspicion that those orations, differing in style, have two different authors. Finally, he asserts that the pamphlet on the miracles of Michael, which is read in Surius, belongs to the same Pantaleon, and from this he concludes that Pantaleon lived long after Theodora, since he narrated miracles performed a long time after the death of the empress.
This conjecture of Combefis sufficiently indicates that the age of Pantaleon was uncertain to him, and therefore that he did not vindicate for him the *Tractate against the Greeks*, whose parent without doubt must have lived in the year 1252; yet others think otherwise, as noted above. We distinguish this tractate, in which many things occur worthy of observation, into three parts, which have as many authors.
The first part, which contains four dissertations against the Greeks, was not only published at Constantinople in the house of the Friars Preachers in the year 1252, as the title indicates, but was also composed by the Dominican Friars themselves. For they speak thus: "These were written in the year 1252, in the city of Constantinople, by the Friars Preachers for the edification and progress of souls, to the praise and glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen."
Two things are to be noted: 1. That the work which the Friars had attempted ends here; for they had approved four chapters against the Greeks, then added the clause "Amen," by which the end of the work is indicated; finally, as will be evident below, what follows are excerpts from other writings. 2. From this it is clear that Pantaleon is not the author of this writing, inasmuch as he is called a deacon or at one time a monastery presbyter, but never a monk. But it is undoubted that that tractate was composed by monks, and was meant to remain anonymous, as is customary for those things written by the order and work of a certain congregation: therefore it presents many authors, and the authors always indicate themselves in the plural number: "We have testified in the preface of this pamphlet."
The second part was not that of the Dominicans, but of Hugo Etherianus, who had refuted the Greeks in the previous century. I am surprised that learned men have not seen this, inasmuch as, 3, the Friars Preachers speak thus: "Although it may already be demonstrated by the four aforementioned articles, yet it is still shown in these that are presented, which we have deemed should be inserted into this work, having been recently extracted from the writings of Master Hugo Etherianus." For they say and write, etc. You see here that the work being finished, certain things are added from the writings of Hugo Etherius. What could be more evident?
One thing, however, can be added: many things are said there which do not befit the Friars Preachers. The author, indicating himself as if a single person, asserts that he saw priests with sacred hands who were "men of blood," while they were following the emperor through Cappadocia and the regions of the Persians. He then adds that he saw clerics scourged and beaten, having first been stripped of the *quario*, that is, the clerical vestment, and that this happened to him in the city of Nicaea. Can you believe that a group of Friars clung to the footprints of the emperor while he was traveling through the Oriental regions? Furthermore, who is that emperor? Is it Baldwin II, who was in command on the side of the Latins? But he never waged war against the Persians. It is true indeed that John Vatatzes, whom many call Ducas, held the imperial seat at Nicaea. But it is not probable that the Preachers were admitted to his court at that time and shared in his various journeys. These things are not only probable, but are true concerning Etherianus, who, since he possessed the highest favor with Manuel Comnenus, who favored the Latins and very often waged war against the Turks and Saracens, followed him through various fortunes and dangers of affairs. One thing can be objected: that what is read in the *Tractate against the Greeks* is not found in Etherianus; but from this a new conjecture can arise, that Etherianus published many pamphlets against the Greeks, from which those things that are brought forward here were excerpted.
Finally, the third part of this writing, entirely different from the others, contains only a narration of a certain portent that must have happened in the times of Michael Cerularius. But the Friars Preachers could not have been the authors, who had previously dealt at length with the schism of Michael, and had not said a word about that portent, and which was attached to this work without a clasp. That short narration may be by Pantaleon, to whom the whole work is wrongly ascribed.
TREATISE AGAINST THE ERRORS OF THE GREEKS, ON THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, ON THE SOULS OF THE DEPARTED, ON UNLEAVENED AND LEAVENED BREAD, ON OBEDIENCE TO THE ROMAN CHURCH, Edited at Constantinople, in the house of the Friars Preachers, in the year of our Lord 1252.
Although we have known the Church of the Greeks to have been formerly adorned with the flowers of virtues and the studies of philosophy, and to have pressed on with a swift course in the footsteps of the holy Fathers, prophets, and apostles, sending forth many living and fiery stones to build up the heavenly Jerusalem; yet now, in the end of times, a fact we cannot report without deep sorrow, it persists in a state different from the holy Roman Church, obscured by myriad and diverse storms of errors, and wrapped in the darkness of its own opinions. And although from about three hundred and eighty years ago—that is, from the time of Photius, or Photinus, the first inventor of this schism—innumerable germs of heresies have manifestly sprouted in its various parts due to a lack of knowledge and the bitterness of envy; yet it is generally and commonly recognized that it deviates from us most especially in four articles. The first of these, since it begins with the divine majesty itself, affirms with polluted mouth against the opinion—or rather, against the Catholic faith—that the third Person in the Trinity, that is, the Holy Spirit, "does not proceed from the Son," nor is breathed by Him, nor has existence from Him. The second, however, aiming with virulent effort to destroy the second virtue in number according to the theologians, that is, the hope of the faithful, asserts that the souls of the departed, before the day of judgment or the passing of the final sentence, cannot be subject to judgments, nor can they enjoy the joys of Paradise, nor suffer the torments of hell or the purgatorial fire. The third, indeed, wishes to restrict the very power of almighty God to the limits of created leaven, A and proclaims with blasphemy that the mystery of the sacrament cannot be performed except in the matter of leavened bread. Having thus erased from the hearts of the faithful, by the aforementioned study and order, these virtues of faith, charity, and hope, it at last proceeds—for the consummation of all wickedness—to attack the fourth thing, that is, the holy Roman Church, which is the point where the correction of these and similar errors lies; it declares commonly that one must not obey it, asserts this in its customs, and speaks it in its deeds.
Against these pestiferous errors, although the labor of many faithful has already been expended, and they have published many writings to be read for the defense of the true Catholic faith; yet because the modern Greeks—new schismatics as well as the old—refuse to be overcome by arguments or reasonings, or by the testimonies of holy Scripture, unless they are from the writings of their own saints, on which they rely heavily, both apocryphal and genuine; I shall labor, inclined also by the prayers of the brethren, to show by whatever power I can how their obstinacy is refuted from their own books.
If therefore, dearest brother, anything in these matters should be pleasing to you, refer it to God, the source of all good things, to whom every heart lies open and to whom every will speaks, and recommend me earnestly through the frequency of your prayers. But if anything should appear, beyond my intention, that is perhaps less consistent with the truth, may you purify it with the file of your correction, reducing it to the light of truth and charity, and may you grant pardon to my ignorance and to the poverty of my brevity.
B
FOLLOWING ARE THE OPINIONS OF THE GREEKS.
Arguments of the Greeks on the first article: that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son.
Therefore, the Greeks, wishing to defend the first article with their own arguments and testimonies of authorities, proceed as follows.
First: If the Holy Spirit, they say, proceeds from the Father according to the Gospel, does He proceed perfectly? Either that procession is perfect, or it is not. If it is perfect, as you will concede, why is it necessary that He should proceed from the Son? Therefore, the second procession is superfluous, which is either superfluous or inconvenient in the Godhead. Therefore, etc.
Item, since there is one cause and source in the Godhead, namely the Father, both the Son and the Holy Spirit exist from the Father—the former by generation, the latter by procession. But if the Holy Spirit exists or proceeds from the Son, then the Son also will be a cause of the Holy Spirit, and thus there will be two causes: and consequently, two C
principles in the Divinity. But this is inconsistent. Therefore, etc.
Third: Item, in John, the Truth says to his disciples: *All things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you.* Where the Glossary says: "All things necessary for salvation are written in the Gospel." But that is not written in the Gospel; therefore it is not among the things necessary for salvation. Therefore A we are not bound to believe it. But we are bound to believe and venerate what is true, especially those things which appear to proclaim the divine essence. But we are not bound to believe this. Therefore, it is not true.
Fourth: Since the Truth made mention of the procession of the Holy Spirit, he said: *Who proceedeth from the Father*, he did not say: "And from the Son." And if the Truth had understood something else, he would have said something else; but I do not dare, nor do I presume, to add to his words.
Item: Not only did Christ keep silent about this, but not one of the apostles said any such thing; no saint ever preached this. Indeed, what is more, in the edition of the true faith, the holy councils defined nothing on this matter; but, placing in the Creed those things which are necessary for salvation, they concluded and rejected every addition, explanation, B or declaration under the bond of anathema.
Item: Many of our doctors, whose most ancient writings persist among us to this day, such as Theodoret and certain others, wrote and handed down the contrary of this opinion of yours. Damascene also, to whose writings you certainly cannot contradict, wishing to show that both the Son and the Holy Spirit exist from the Father, and that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, bringing the metaphor of mind and speech into the middle, says: "First there is the mind, then the outward word, namely the voice; but the breath is the vehicle of the word. Therefore, the mind forms the voice, and in the exhaled breath itself the mind is shown. And the mind is attributed to the Father, the word to the Son, and the breath to the Holy Spirit. As, therefore, we see that the breath and the voice proceed from the mind, and not the breath from the voice; so the Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, and the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son."
Saint Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, in his book *On the One Deity*, testifies thus concerning the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit is God, and is Christ's Spirit, not according to any composition, just as body and soul are in us: namely, in the midst of the Father and the Son." Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father *through* the Son, as you madly rave; since according to this voice of the Father, the Holy Spirit is ordered between the Father and the Son.
Item: Who revealed this to you? Where did you get it? Why was this not also revealed to us? Why did you insert into the Creed something of this sort, which was nowhere placed by the holy Fathers? But if you had this on the occasion of certain words of divine Scripture, saying: C know that you either do not understand the Scriptures, or, having understood them, you studiously pervert them, or certainly, through ignorance, you deviate far from the truth and the expositions of the saints. Wherefore, returning to us, who are the fountains, you will be able to hear the truth. It is said, therefore, that the Spirit is the Son's, not because he proceeds from him, but because by reason of the divine essence, he is consubstantial with him.
Item: The Holy Spirit is said to be sent or given by the Son, because he is sent by him to sanctify creatures, just as he himself testifies in John, saying: *If I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.* As for what the Son himself says elsewhere: *He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine*, it is to be understood as "of my Father." For all things that are the Father's, except for personal properties, are common to both: we say it is proper to the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him alone, and not from another.
Response against the first two objections.
By these and many other arguments, which are not set forth for the sake of brevity (though those which are more customary have been set forth), the Greeks, lyingly confessing that the holy Roman Church has erred and has fallen under the canon of a passed sentence—that they have justly withdrawn owed obedience and devoted reverence from the same Church—labor to persuade simple men. But we Latins, having dismissed these and other insults to their own place,
To the first and second objection, giving one reply, we solve it thus: We concede that he proceeds from the Son by a full and perfect procession: yet it does not follow that there are two processions, and that one of them is superfluous, because in that simplest nature of the Divinity, neither number of vicissitudes, nor variety of time, nor local position, nor flow, nor incision, nor interval, D nor span of time can fall. Hence it is that that procession by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is not accomplished by an interval of time, nor by a span of place, since there is no "before" or "after"; but he is from the Father and the Son simultaneously and at once. Yet, proceeding from the Father, through the medium of the Son, according to the testimonies set forth below, he proceeds: that is, the Son possesses this from the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds and is breathed from him, and is sent and given. Whence, referring even to the Father himself—from whom the Son also has everything that is his—and attributing everything to him, he says in John: *My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.* And again: *When the Paraclete shall come, whom I will send you, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father*; as if the Son were to say: "I name the Father only in the procession of the Spirit because everything I possess, by reason of being and of principle, is from the Father himself, who is the cause and principle in Divinity."
A Thus, the holy doctors, discerning this difference with the eye of the inner man and with sound mind, are found in many places to have said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally. Others have said that he proceeds properly from the Father; others, that he proceeds from the Father through the Son, or by the mediation of the Son. And although what the saints assert is true and cannot be contradicted, it does not follow that which the Greek understands—namely, that the same Spirit proceeds first from the Father and afterwards from the Son, or that he proceeds more from the Father than from the Son, or that there are two processions and one of them is superfluous. Rather, it is because the Father, in eternally begetting the Son, gave him his whole being (for he is true God from God), and because the same Son, existing eternally, received from the Father, by being born, everything that he has, and that the Spirit should exist and proceed from him. Seeing this essence of the Spirit from the Son, the holy doctors, especially the Greeks, call the Son the cause and fountain of the Holy Spirit, and also call the Spirit himself the image of the Son. Just as the Son is the image of the Father, they assign such a number and order to the Spirit in relation to the Son as the Son has in relation to the Father, according to what will appear more fully in the following. B We have said, therefore, that the Holy Spirit proceeds equally and alike from the Father and the Son as the gift of both, and the love of each; but he proceeds from the Father through the Son, or by the mediation of the Son, as we have said, or certainly principally and properly from the Father, because the Father had from no one that he should proceed from him; but the Son received it, not from himself, but from the Father. For from whom he has that he should exist, from the same he also has that the Holy Spirit should exist from him, and proceed, be given, and be sent, that he might receive being from him. All these terms, to those who understand correctly, preach and manifest one and the same thing, that is, the essence of the Spirit from the Son. Which, however, as we have said, the Greek does not confess.
Assertion of the Catholic Truth. And first from the authorities of the Greek Fathers.
C That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, or by the mediation of the Son, as has been said; or that the same Son is called the fountain and cause of the Holy Spirit; and also that the same Holy Spirit is called the image of the Son and receives being from him: omitting many arguments, which they neither receive nor fully understand, we prove this by insisting on the testimonies of their own saints:
Gregory Nazianzen, in the sermon which begins *Odibiles*, etc., speaks thus: "The Spirit, sent eternally from the essence of the Father through the Son, sanctifies every creature," etc.
In the Epistle of Dionysius: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, God and life-giving, proceeding from the Father through the Son."
Basil in the sermon on the Trinity, which begins thus: *Cognitio Patris, etc.*: "Anciently the mystery of the Divinity was not unknown. For by the word of the Lord, says the Psalmist, the heavens were established, and by the Spirit of his mouth all their power; but neither by another Word than the Son, nor by another Spirit than the Holy Spirit. For there is one Spirit. And just as the Son proceeding from the mouth of God, so he unites the Trinity by the Word, both anciently and now."
Likewise in the same, before the end: "The way of the knowledge of God is from the one Spirit through the one Son to the one Father. Natural goodness, and that sanctification which is according to nature, and royal dignity pass from the Father through the Only-begotten to the Spirit."
Likewise Athanasius in the *Edition of the Faith*, whose beginning is: *Credimus in unum unigenitum Deum, etc.*, a little before the end: "But the Holy Spirit, being the processive [entity] of the Father and of the bearer Son, through whom he fulfilled all things."
Likewise in the Epistle of Athanasius on the Holy Spirit to Serapion, whose beginning is: *Litteræ tuæ devotionis, etc.*: "With the Son being one and living, there must be one full, perfect, and sanctifying life: which is his operation, and the gift which is said to proceed from the Father: because it shines forth manifestly from the Word, which is from the Father, and is sent and given."
D Gregory of Nyssa in the Epistle to Eulalius, which begins: *Vos quod justum, etc.*, a little before the end: "Truly confessing him to be immutable, we do not deny the difference between him who is causative and that which is caused; in which we understand that only one is distinguished from the other, believing this to be something causative; but this [arises] from the causative and from that which is from the causative; again we understand another difference, for this is next from the first: and this [second] is through the next from the first."
Likewise, the same in the book against Eunomius, almost at the end, speaks there: "For just as the Son is coupled to the Father, and having being from him, is not posterior in existence: so again the Holy Spirit is held from the Only-begotten, by intellect alone, with the manner of cause being pre-speculated in the hypostasis of the Spirit."
Likewise Athanasius in the sermon against the Arians whose beginning is: *Qui malitiose*, at the end, speaking of the water springing up into eternal life, thus says: "For this reason David, singing to God, says thus: For with you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light. For he knew that the Son is with the Father, the fountain of the Holy Spirit; just as through the prophet the Son says: They have forsaken me, the fountain of living water," etc.
Likewise Cyril in the seventh sermon, whose beginning is: *De humanatione Unigeniti*, as if after the second part of the sermon: "For, relieving from sin him who consents to him, he joins him henceforth to his own Spirit."
"> A rit, which he himself sends forth; so that, just as the Word is from God the Father, so from his own nature he refunds the Spirit to us."
That which we here call refunding is expressed in Greek as *anapempein*, and is derived from the word for a fountain according to the preposition *ana*. From this it appears clearly that the holy Father understood the Son to be the fountain of the Holy Spirit.
The blessed Gregory, surnamed the Wonderworker, in his version of the Creed which is read in his Life, speaks thus: "There is one Holy Spirit, having his essence from God, and shining clearly to men through the Son, the perfect image of the Son."
Likewise, Great Athanasius, in the Epistle to Serapion concerning the Holy Spirit, the beginning of which is: "Your letters of holy affection," etc., says thus: B "As the Son is in the Spirit in his own image, so also is the Father in the Son." And after a little: "The Holy Spirit is also called and is the image of the Son, as Paul says: 'Whom he foreknew, I say, and predestinated to be made conformable to the image of the Son of God' [Rom. viii, 29]." Likewise in the same: "For it will be manifest that the Spirit is neither a creature, nor the essence of angels, in that they are mutable, but is the proper image of the Word and of the Father." Likewise in an abridged discourse of the same Epistle: "But if he is the good odor and form of the Son, it is manifest that the Spirit will not be a creature."
Likewise Basil in his fourth sermon against Eunomius, which begins thus: "If the Son is God by nature, etc.: Christ is a certain image of God: 'Who is,' I say, 'the image of the invisible God' [Coloss. i, 15], but the Spirit is the image of the Son."
Likewise in the same book, in the chapter whose title is: "That as the Son relates to the Father, so the Spirit relates to the Son"; at the very beginning of the chapter, he says: "For this reason, the Son is also a certain word of God; but the Spirit is the word of the Son: 'Upholding,' I say, 'all things by the word of his power' [Hebr. i, 3]."
Likewise the blessed Cyril in the book of Dialogues with Hermias, speaking concerning the Holy Spirit, the beginning of which is: "The labor of the blessed is a glorious fruit," etc.: "The true and natural character, which is understood according to likeness unto the highest certainty, is the Son himself; the Spirit is the pure and natural likeness of the Son; you shall hear the blessed Paul writing: 'For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of the Son of God, and whom he predestinated, these he also called' [Rom. viii, 29, 30]."
Athanasius to Serapion in the Epistle concerning the Holy Spirit, as noted above: "And the Son," he says, "what I heard from the Father, these things I speak in the world [John viii, 26]. The Spirit, however, shall receive from the Son and shall announce to you [John xvi, 14]."
Likewise Basil to Amphilochius, chap. 5: "Paul, writing to the Ephesians, says: 'But practicing the truth,' etc. 'And of his fullness we all have received' [John i, 16]." C And the Lord himself says: "For he shall receive of mine, and shall announce to you [John xvi, 14]."
Likewise Gregory of Nyssa in the sermon against Arius and Sabellius, which begins thus: "What am I saying? Tell me: Is the Holy Spirit immortal, etc.?" "Holy, principal, just, true, searching the deep things of God, proceeding from the Father, receiving from the Son to be," etc.
Likewise Epiphanius in the book which is called *Ancyrotus* or *Ancoratus*, says thus: "But the Holy Spirit, being the Spirit of God with the Father and the Son, is not another God from God; but being from God, he proceeds from the Father, receives from the Son, and in the same the Son reveals the Father. For no one knows the Father except the Son, from whom he proceeds, from whom he receives."
Lo, it is evident from the premises how the Holy Spirit is from the Son, or how he proceeds equally from both: because there is no other meaning in the Spirit being from the Father or from the Son than that he proceeds from them. For since there is no other mode by which a person is from another, except for generation or procession, it is necessary that, if the Holy Spirit is from the Son—which the Greek cannot deny—he is also from him by way of procession: unless perhaps they wish to invent a new heresy, to say that the same Holy Spirit is generated from the Son, and that there are two Sons in the Godhead, and one of them is the grandson.
It is shown moreover that, that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, this the Son has from the Father: for which reason the Spirit is said to proceed or be spirated from the Father, through the Son, or by means of the Son, or certainly principally and properly. For it is determined D how the same Spirit from the Son, who is his cause and fountain, is said to be the reason and form of the Son according to the Catholic faith, because of his mode of being from the Son. Wherefore the Spirit is also called the Word and Image of the Son for the same reason. If the prudent reader considers this diligently, he will find that many things which were objected by the Greeks are solved; and although briefly, yet still it is and has been closed in a Catholic and truthful manner.
Solution to the third objection.
To the third objection, however, which says: "All things whatsoever I have heard from my Father, I will make known to you [John xv, 15]." We concede, just as they themselves gloss it, that he made known all things necessary for salvation. This, however, we necessarily add in the gloss, that he makes all things known to them either implicitly or explicitly. For since the words are of the Truth, the Truth cannot lie. He says: "I have many other things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when that Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth [John xvi, 13]," as if to say: "The understanding of these and other words of mine I leave to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, who will teach you and suggest all things, whatsoever I have said to you."
Likewise, although it is not found according to the voice
in the Gospel, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, it is A nevertheless found according to the truth of the intellect in many places. For it is called the Spirit of Truth, that is, of the Son, because the uncreated Truth, Christ, was speaking about himself at that time. If, therefore, it is the Spirit of Truth, it is either because the Spirit is from the Truth, or because the Truth is from the Spirit. But that the Truth should be from the Spirit is an error, because the Son is from the Father alone and not from the Spirit: it is necessary to confess that it is the Spirit of Truth, that is, of the Son, which is to say, from the Son. But if it is from the Son, it is either by generation or by procession, as above. But that this is of right exposition will appear in the following.
That the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, that is, of the Son, is proven from the expositions of the Greek Fathers.
Blessed Cyril, in the recapitulation concerning the Holy Spirit, in sixty-six dismemberments, says in his demonstration: "In the Gospels the Savior indeed says of Himself: I am the truth. But blessed John, showing the Spirit from the essence of the Father and the Son, says in the Gospels: The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father."
The same saint, in the fourth epistle to Nestorius, whose beginning is: "With our Savior saying, etc.," a little before the end: "And if the Holy Spirit is in His own hypostasis, and is understood in Himself, or because He is Spirit and not the Son, nevertheless He is not alien to the Son Himself. For He is named the Spirit of Truth. But Christ is the Truth, and He is poured forth from Him, just as indeed from the Father." And what it is to be "poured forth," the same Cyril explains in the exposition of the Nicene Creed, handling that word, "Who proceeds from the Father," saying: "The discourse about Christ Himself having been finished, when the blessed Fathers made mention of the Holy Spirit, they said: 'I believe in Him, just as in the Father and the Son; for He is consubstantial with them, and the Spirit is poured forth, and proceeds as if from a fountain, from God and the Father."
Blessed Basil also, in the book *On the Holy Spirit*, to Amphilochius, chap. 18: "If any one does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. Whence He alone glorifies God. He will glorify me, I say, because He will receive of mine and will announce it to you, not as a creature, but as the Spirit of wisdom, revealing Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, in His greatness; and as the Paraclete Spirit, He characterizes that which He promised through the Spirit, the goodness of the Paraclete, and in His own dignity demonstrates His majesty. Whence also He comes forth; which is the same as saying He proceeds."
The same saint Epiphanius in the book *Ancoratus*: "The Father is the Father of the true Son, the Son is the whole light, the Word of the Father, light from light, not indeed made or created by simple application; and the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the third light from the Father and the Son."
B Item, another authority of the Gospel cries out clearly that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. For the Son says: "He who believes in me, as the Scripture says: out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." But this He said (the evangelist says) of the Spirit, whom they who believe in Him were to receive. You heard, O Greek, that the Spirit proceeds from him who believes in Him? Does the Spirit not also flow from the Son? Indeed. How does He say that the Spirit flows from the minds of believers, unless because He flows from Him whom the one who believes in Him has within himself, that is, from the Son? But what is it for the Spirit to flow from the Son, if not to proceed from Him? That the rivers of the Holy Spirit proceed, is manifested in the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach: "I, he says, Wisdom, have poured out rivers." For what do we understand in this place by Wisdom, if not the Son, and by the rivers, if not the Holy Spirit? Wisdom therefore poured out rivers, because the Son sends forth the Spirit from Himself, who proceeds from Him.
Item, the Son says concerning the same in the Gospel: "As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given also to the Son to have life in Himself." What else do we understand in this place by life, if not the Holy Spirit, whom the Father has in Himself, and gave to the Son, that He Himself might have the Spirit in Himself, just as the Father has? Therefore the Son not only has the Spirit, whom the Father has, but He also so has the Spirit, as the Father has. Let us see, therefore, how the Father has the Spirit in Himself. The Father so has the Spirit that He is always in the Father, and always proceeds from the Father: and He so always proceeds from the Father, that He always remains in the Father, and so always remains in the Father, that yet He always proceeds from the Father. If the Son has the Spirit in Himself in this way, it is true what He Himself says: "As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given also to the Son to have life in Himself." But if He does not have it in this way, how will it be true what He says: "As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given also to the Son to have life in Himself"? But it cannot be false, what was said by the Truth. Therefore it is true what the Truth said.
Item: "As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will." It is the work of the Holy Spirit to give life, etc., as the Truth says: "It is the Spirit that gives life," etc. When therefore the Father gives life to the dead, He gives life by the Holy Spirit, whom He sends into them. For it is the Holy Spirit who gives life to the dead by giving life to the dead by His operation, and also by giving the life of grace to those dead in sins by His inspiration. If therefore the Son gives life from the Holy Spirit just as the Father does, it follows that just as the Spirit pertains to the Father, so also in that way He pertains to the Son. But it pertains to the Father that, by proceeding from Him, He may give life to the world, as it is written elsewhere. So therefore also it pertains to the Son.
But the Greek will say: "The Spirit does not pertain to the Son in the same way as to the Father, because the Father gave the Son..."
the power to send; but He kept for Himself the fact that (the Spirit) should proceed from Him." Far be it from the minds of the faithful that this foolishness should exist, that the Holy Spirit, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son, should be given and exist in one way and another, or that He should have received something else in time or exist as something else in eternity. For this variety does not fall upon God, but upon creatures. Nor did the Son ever receive the Spirit by measure, just as we do, as it is written. For we read: "God does not give the Spirit by measure" (John 3:34); supply: to His Son. If it were true that the Father had given the Spirit to the Son in such a way that the Son (the Father) had retained some grace of lordship in Himself, then He would indeed have given the Spirit to the Son by measure, so that we could measure that gift by saying: "This, indeed, the Father gave to the Son, but this He did not give; thus He gave, and thus He did not give." Does not the Greek measure the Spirit to the Son when he says: "The Son has the Spirit in such a way that He sends and gives Him, but He does not have Him in such a way that He proceeds from Him"? B
Likewise, the Son says concerning the Holy Spirit: "I know that virtue has gone out from me" (Luke 8:46). And the Gospel likewise: "Virtue went out from Him and healed all" (Luke 6:19). But what was that virtue which healed all? Concerning which virtue it is again written: "But stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with virtue from on high" (Luke 24:49). Therefore, whoever denies that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, denies likewise that His words are from Him. But the Evangelist says: "All wondered at the words of grace which proceeded from His mouth" (Luke 4:22).
What more? For the Truth Himself, our Savior, wishing to remove all that ambiguity from the midst, after the glory of His resurrection, having now become immortal and impassible, showed the Holy Spirit proceeding from Himself, when, breathing upon the disciples, He said: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:21), etc. Explaining this authority, the blessed Athanasius in his sermon on the dispensation of the Word of God in the flesh, and on the Trinity against the Arians—the beginning of which is: "He who maliciously, etc."—speaks thus: C «For this reason He breathes into the face of the apostles, saying: Receive the Holy Spirit, so that we may learn that the Holy Spirit is given to the disciples from the fullness of the Divinity: For in Christ, He says, that is, in His flesh, dwells all the fullness of the Divinity» (Col. 2:9). Just as John the Baptist says: "And we all have received from His fullness" (John 1:16), etc. In bodily form also the Holy Spirit was seen as a dove descending and remaining upon Him. But in us the pledge and first fruits of the Divinity dwell, whereas in Him the fullness of the Divinity, lest anyone should think that, not having the Spirit, He received Him then. For He Himself was sending Him from above as God, and He Himself was receiving Him from below as man. Therefore, from Him He descended into Him, from His divinity into His humanity. And this indeed is Athanasius.
Blessed Cyril bears witness in the same way regarding the same Spirit, that the Holy Spirit is from the Son, and that the Son Himself then gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles when He breathed upon them and said: "Receive the Holy Spirit," in his commentary on Genesis: «Just as the blessed Moses showed that man received the breath of life from God, so Christ, renewing this in us after the resurrection from the dead, breathed upon the disciples saying: Receive the Holy Spirit, so that reformed again to the pristine image, we may appear conformable to the Creator through the participation of the Spirit.»
When therefore the Holy Spirit, made in us, shows us conformable to God, but proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is manifest that He is of the same essence substantially in Them, and proceeding from Them, just as an insufflation runs out from a human mouth: although it is a small and unworthy example. For God will surpass all things.
Likewise, Anastasius, the Patriarch of Antioch, in his sermon on the right truth of dogmas, which begins: "The Lord God is my strength," etc., bears witness as follows regarding the Holy Spirit: «For the Lord, showing the Spirit Himself to exist from Him, breathing, said: Receive the Holy Spirit.»
Behold, as we have said, all things that are necessary for salvation are written, either explicitly or implicitly, in the Gospel: which we have proven from the stated words and the succeeding testimonies of the saints, and it will appear more manifest in the following chapter. D
Solution to the fourth objection
To the fourth objection, where it is said: "The Son said the Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and did not add: from the Son," we say that it is not necessary that wherever one person is passed over in silence, He should be excluded, and not understood; for in this way the Truth Himself, the Son of God, would have precipitated us into many errors. For example, in the Gospel we read written: "For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you" (Matt. 10:20). Likewise: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), said the Son, and made no mention of the Holy Spirit. And again: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the Father" (Mark 13:32). Likewise Paul: "God sent the Spirit of His Son" (Gal. 4:6), he does not say, His own. And again: "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Rom. 8:9). Likewise the Son in the Gospel: "It is the Spirit who gives life" (John 6:64). If therefore only that person is understood in these authorities, of whom mention is made, and no other: then the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father only, and not of the Son, because there is no mention of the Son, only of the Father. Likewise, only the Spirit speaks, and not the Father, or the Son. Likewise, thus the Father knows what the things are that will come to pass in the last days, and not His Wisdom, that is, the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Likewise: Who is this Spirit of the Son, whom the Father sends into the hearts of the believers? Will He be someone other than
He of whom it is written: The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father A? Likewise, concerning the person of the Father, the Lord speaking in the Gospel says: If you forgive men their sins, your Father will forgive you your sins 39; and again: Whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven 40. Is the person of the Son, then, not understood in these? Why is He excluded when it is said, The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father? Especially since the Son, who is the Truth, speaks of Himself, as has been demonstrated in what precedes. There is no reason for this, unless it is that it has pleased the Greeks who wish to oppose Him. Nevertheless, we firmly believe and hold in a catholic manner that sometimes the name of the Father alone is placed in a locution, and yet the name of the Son itself is understood; and sometimes the name of the Son is not understood in these, nor of the Holy Spirit, and it pertains only to those persons, and not to the Father. But then it is necessary to consider whether that which is said of one person can pertain to the others, while preserving the properties of each person without confusion. Whence we say that some things pertain only to the Father, some only to the Son, some only to the Holy Spirit. Some things pertain to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, B and some things simultaneously to all three persons. To the Father alone pertains this name: unbegotten, unoriginated, and begetter; to the Son: begotten and originated; to the Holy Spirit: proceeding; and this name, Holy Spirit, is common by appropriated vocabulary to the Father and the Son, as much according to the holy Greeks as according to the Latins. To give, to send, to have, and to breathe, however, are common to the Holy Spirit and to the Son, because both exist eternally from the Father—the latter through procession, the former through generation. Indeed, all other things pertain commonly to the three persons. Those things, therefore, which do not take away the property nor confuse the distinction, it is not necessary that, if they are said of one only, the other should be excluded on account of this. Because in such cases, although it may not be named, it is nevertheless always sub-understood, and even if it is not specified, as has been shown in the foregoing.
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, according to the Apostles and the Greeks.
Having shown, therefore, that the Spirit proceeds from the Son according to the Gospel, according to what the sacred doctors have expounded to us: it remains, and it is necessary, that the adversaries of the truth, being caught in many falsehoods, no faith should henceforth be shown to their assertions.
Cyril, thus expounding that word which is placed in the Acts of the Apostles: As they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said: Separate for me Barnabas and Saul 41, says thus: «If, therefore, they say that those who were called in the apostolate by the Spirit were called by Jesus, it is clearly shown C that the Spirit is not alien from the essence of the Son, but in Him, and from Him, as a certain natural operation capable of fulfilling all things, whatsoever He also wills.»
And after a few words, responding to the words of the heretics, who say that the Spirit is imperfect and has nothing from Himself, but exists from participation, because of this, that the Lord says of Him: For He shall not speak from Himself 42, etc., he says thus: «For not by showing the Spirit to be imperfect does the Savior say this of Him, but that He might the more certify the listeners that, existing of His essence, He speaks nothing other than what He Himself wills, and being His sense according to Blessed Paul who says about the Spirit: We have the mind [sense] of Christ 43: He shall entirely reason and ordain what He Himself, whose sense He is, also wills. For this reason He affirmed that the Spirit would speak nothing from Himself, as if He were to say: I myself am again He who speaks; just as if the sense that is in a man were to say concerning the reason proceeding from itself: He shall not speak anything from Himself, but whatsoever He hears He shall speak.»
And immediately after some words interposed, the holy Cyril says: «It is necessary to receive such an understanding concerning the Holy Spirit. For since the Holy Spirit is of Christ, whatsoever He speaks to the disciples, He does not speak by any will separated from Him in whom He is; but as naturally proceeding from His essence, and having His whole will, just as [He has] His operation.» And that which we have translated here as *proceeding*, in the Greek it is said * * and is distinguished by the participle [τῷ εκπορευομένῳ]. The verb of which participle is read in the Gospel, where it says the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The same saint, expounding another authority of blessed Paul, repeats the same, saying: «Paul writes to some, saying thus: I give you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says anathema to Jesus: and no one can say: Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit 44. It is manifest, therefore, that he who participates in the Holy Spirit knows that Jesus is Lord; he who does not participate, is ignorant. How is it that he who participates in the Spirit knows that Jesus is Lord? Just as one who has tasted of honey knows that honey is sweet: so too they who are participants in the Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is, as it were, a certain quality of the essence of the Son, if we may so speak, of all divine Lordship.»
Cyril in sermon 2, to Hermias 3, a little before the middle, upon that which says: Behold I am with you 46, etc., says: «The Son sent the Paraclete to us from heaven, through whom and in whom He abides with us and in us: not pouring forth upon us something alien or foreign, but the Spirit of His own essence and of the Father’s person.»
Likewise, Anastasius, Patriarch of Antioch, in the aforementioned sermon on the true reality of dogmas, says this: A “Concerning our healthy faith, and the correct teachings of the Church, we decide by a diligent and subtle reasoning, taking as an example the body and its property, to compare the proportions and properties of the divine Persons. For the Spirit of His mouth—that is, God’s—is called the Holy Spirit, the Only-Begotten being the mouth. And the Spirit again proceeds from Him, and is sent not only by the Father, but also by the Son.”
Epiphanius of Cyprus, in the aforementioned book *Ancoratus*, testifies thus regarding the procession of the Spirit from the Son: “For the Spirit is God, and the Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not according to any composition, as with body and soul in us, but in the middle of the Father and the Son, from the Father and the Son.”
The same saint, in his book *On the One Deity*, says: “Peter therefore says to those who were with Ananias: ‘Why has Satan tempted you to lie to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to men, but to God.’ Therefore: God is the Spirit from the Father and the Son, to whom they have lied, who defrauded Him of the price.”
Item, in the same work: “The whole of life is God; therefore, life is from the Life, the Son. For He says, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ The Holy Spirit is Spirit and life from both. For the Spirit is God.”
And again: “Do we say there are two Sons? And how is He the Only-Begotten? Nay, who are you to answer back to God? If He calls the Son, that is, He proceeds from Himself, but the Holy Spirit from both?”
What then shall we say? Do we still need witnesses? We have heard the blasphemies of the Greeks, who say: “The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, because He proceeds perfectly from the Father,” as if He were not also perfectly sent and given by the Son!
Item, they say: “He does not proceed from the Son, because there would be two causes and two principles.” Therefore, since the Holy Scriptures and the Gospel call the Son a principle from a principle, as it is written: “I am the Principle, who also speak to you” and the Psalmist: “And You, O Lord, in the beginning [Principle], founded the earth.”
The same, what they say is not true, that Christ was silent on these things, the apostles did not say them, and the saints preached nothing of this. But from the aforementioned authorities, their lies having now been exposed, it remains now to show how, in the things that follow, they lie in their own reasonings.
They say: “The holy Fathers in the councils defined nothing on this; but placing in the Creed those things necessary for salvation, they excommunicated those who added anything else; but you have added: therefore you are excommunicated.”
*The Response of the Latins.* In response to this we say briefly: A B C The saints D did not place this in the Creed because they had no doubts. For they did not propose in the Creed, nor define in the councils, except those things which were being called into question by heretics and were leading the world or the universal Church into error. Hence they would not have set forth the Creed at that time had the depravity of the heretics not compelled them to do so. Therefore, in the first and holy universal synod, which was celebrated under the most holy Pope Sylvester, in the time of Constantine the Emperor, by three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers in the province of Bithynia, in the city of Nicaea, against the most impious dogma of Arius, who said the Son of God was made and created, they defined nothing else concerning the Holy Spirit than that one must believe in Him, and that He is Lord, and lifegiver.
But in the second synod, which was celebrated under blessed Pope Damasus, in the time of Emperor Theodosius, by a hundred and fifty Fathers in the city of Constantinople against Macedonius, bishop of the aforementioned city, who said the Holy Spirit was lower than the Father and the Son, or at any rate a minister of the Trinity, the aforesaid Fathers defined the Spirit as not made nor created, but rather as Creator, proceeding from the very fountain in the Deity, the Father, as from a primary vein. And they noted this more diligently in the second Creed, which is called the Constantinopolitan. Because, however, there was no question or doubt as to whether the Spirit proceeded from the Son or not, the holy Fathers, just as with many other things which were later defined in other councils in a catholic manner, passed over it in silence.
In the process of time, however, with the malice of certain people growing in the Western parts, who were saying the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son because it is not placed in the Creed, the bishops of those parts, having gathered together with the license and authority of the Supreme Pontiff, declaring the truth of the faith which we hold in the Creed, commanded that this also be sung by all in the Church. The Greeks and other Orientals, however, were not called, either because they were too distant, or because they did not doubt, and thus did not even bring this into question.
For that which was permitted to them then, and is permitted to us today—to write, preach, and sing something that is not expressed in the Creed—we are taught by the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh councils, some of which define what is not expressed in the Creed: such as concerning the holy images, on which the seventh synod was held, nothing of which is contained in the Creed. Likewise, the Creed does not manifest the two wills and operations in Christ, on which the sixth synod made a definition; nor does the Creed condemn the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, or those of Theodoret, which he composed against blessed Cyril, although they are condemned by the second universal synod. Thus neither do they [mention] the two natures, unconfused and unmingled in
A Christ in the unity of the person, without any conversion, as we have expressed through the Creed, since the fourth universal synod, following Pope Leo the First, established it to be so. The letter of his which we mentioned above, the Greek even today calls a column of the orthodox faith. And—something that perhaps someone might find surprising—the holy and universal synod prohibits that it be lawful for anyone to proffer, or write, or compose a faith other than that which was defined by the holy Fathers gathered at Nicaea, although the second synod issued a Creed, as was shown above, in which some things are contained that are not found in the Nicene council—a fact manifest to the reader from a comparison of both synods. The actual prohibition itself is contained word for word in the last chapter of the third synod: "When these things were read, the holy B synod defined that it is lawful for no one to proffer, or write, or compose another faith besides that which was defined by the holy Fathers at Nicaea with the Holy Spirit; those who presume to proffer or offer another faith, and are unwilling to be converted to the acknowledgement of the truth from Judaism or any other heresy whatsoever, if indeed they are such, are to be anathematized."
But the Greek will say: "What more is asked? Behold, we have the proposal from the definition."
Response of the Latins.
C To this we respond saying: The prohibition of the holy council is shown to be both holy and true, and it is discerned to contain nothing against the truth. For it says: "If anyone shall preach or write another faith than the truth, let him be anathema." But the Latin writes and preaches that which is proven to be true by the authorities of the saints and the testimonies of the Holy Scripture. Therefore, he is not preaching another faith, but the same faith formerly less explicitly [set forth] in the Creed, to the faithful and the infidels alike.
That this exposition is true is proven by the authority of the Apostle, and by the very expositors of the sacred faith who merited to be present personally at the said councils. Paul therefore says to certain people thus: "Whoever shall preach to you another gospel besides that which you have received," that is, if someone has evangelized to you another, that is, a contrary one, or has taught in a contrary manner, "let him be anathema" (II Cor. XI, 4). He does not say: "If anyone adds to you." For if he had said that, he would have prejudiced himself, seeing as he desired to come in order to supply those things which were lacking in their faith. But he who supplies adds what was lacking, he does not remove what was present. He who goes beyond the rule of faith does not add to all things, but retreats from the path. "Another" therefore is posited in place of "opposite." For, regarding those things which are of God, no man can prohibit the truth from being sung, read, and preached in the churches. Whence the same Apostle says: "We can do nothing against the truth" (II Cor. XIII, 8). Since, therefore, the Roman Church [does not preach] another or contrary D faith, if, on account of such a declaration of faith, as the Greeks assert, the Latins have incurred a sentence of excommunication for an addition made to the Creed, it must be confessed that all who were at the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh councils, because they defined some things, indeed many things, concerning the faith beyond those which were contained in the Nicene Creed, have been struck down by the sword of anathema. But what greater madness, and greater blindness, than to say, or to proffer, or at all to think, that the third council excommunicated those in the past, and those in the future, who defined anything more in the Church, however true, than that which was established by the holy Fathers in the holy Nicene synod?
Again, does the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed contain everything necessary for salvation, when no other of the seven sacraments of the Church, except for baptism, is explicitly contained therein? To whom, therefore, does it seem doubtful that there are certain truths concerning God which are not contained in books? And, that we may be silent about these things for now, (5) those who follow things not read after they have been completed: where in Scripture can you find that the Father and the Spirit, when the Son was incarnate, were not incarnate, or did not suffer? Yet that is so true that to conceive of the opposite even in one's mind is absurd.
Again, how does the third council excommunicate the first, and the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh? For it receives at the end of every council this very same prohibition made by them, namely: "If anyone [preaches] another faith, etc." If they were excommunicated, how can they be saints? If, however, they are saints, they were not excommunicated. How then were they not excommunicated, except that they did not presume to preach another faith—that is, one contrary to the right faith—according to the intent of the prohibition? That they so studiously and anxiously prohibited this very thing in every council, contrary to heretics, and that it was not done to the prejudice of the truth, is openly proven by what is contained in the following.
For the blessed Cyril says in his Letter to Nestorius: "It will not suffice for you to confess only the Creed of the faith issued for the time in the Spirit by the great synod gathered for the time at Nicaea. For you have not understood rightly: but you have interpreted it not rightly: but it is said perversely against the importunities of heretics, [that it is forbidden] to affirm, write, compose, teach, or know another faith, plus or minus: [those] who strive to superinduce or subtract something."
Item, Athanasius on the same matter: "Nothing further is to be written concerning the faith, but [all] are to be content with that faith which the holy Fathers wrote down at Nicaea, on account of the cavils of heretics: not that a prejudice should be brought against piety; otherwise we would be putting forward all the saints who later said something about the faith A and the six venerable synods as having been held in contempt."
Item, Cyril in his Epistle, the beginning of which is: *I have read the memorandum:* "Athanasius said that the holy synod did not make mention of the term 'Birth-giver' (Theotokos): but I wrote that even if the synod did not make mention, it did well. For nothing of this sort had been stirred up at that time, because there was no necessity to bring forward things that were not being sought."
Item, Basil in the Epistle which he wrote to Epiphanius, spoke thus: "We can add nothing to our faith, nor can we [glorify] the Holy Spirit beyond that glorification which our Fathers made mention of in passing, the question concerning Him not yet having been raised at that time."
It is clear, therefore, from the foregoing, that this was done against the importunities of heretics, who strive to pervert the truth—not that a prejudice was intended against piety. And [it is clear] that it is permissible to explain those things which were said in passing, even with additions, and that it is also permissible to bring into the open, to write, and to chant the truth that was tacit for a time. Since the Greeks cannot deny this, unless they perhaps wish to condemn their own writings and their own holy Fathers, they have the necessity, together with us, to admit and grant that the Roman Pontiff, on account of the addition made in the Creed (which no one of the B saints doubted to be true), is not excommunicated, nor a heretic, but a pious doctor, and a Catholic and faithful steward, whom the Lord has set over his family, that is, the universal Church, that he may give them food in due season.
The Opinion of the Greeks.
The Greeks therefore say again: "Many of our doctors up to now, whose writings persist among us even to this day, such as Theodoret and others, have written things in opposition to your erroneous opinion."
The Response of the Latins.
Responding to whom, we say: That if all they name as doctors are such as Theodoret is proven to have been, we flee from them like a plague and condemn them as heretics. For in the fifth C council, when the said Theodoret had dared with rash endeavor to oppose [the question of whether the Holy Spirit is from the Son], he deserved to sustain a sentence of excommunication in the full council, until he should publicly retract the things he had said and written against the aforementioned Father.
Rejecting, therefore, the authority of this Theodoret as blasphemous, let us approach that of Damascene, which begins thus: "First is the intellect, then the external word, but the spirit is the vehicle of the word."
Item: A solution to the word of Damascene.
It must be made known to the Greeks that there is an external word and an internal word. The internal word, as the holy doctors say, is the intellect or thought. The external word is speech. Likewise, the spirit is twofold: internal spirit and external. The internal spirit is love; the external, however, is air. Now, therefore, the doctors, just as Saint Augustine and others, D exemplifying the incarnate Word and the uncreated Spirit, compare the internal spirit to the external word, of which Saint Augustine says: "First is the mind: then the word or thought is spoken, because the thought conceived in the mind is called a word." Consequently, it follows that from both is breathed an affection or love. For the mind is attributed to the Father; the word to the Son; love to the Holy Spirit. From this, therefore, we say that the Spirit proceeds from both, just as love [proceeds] from the mind and from the internal word or thought. The authority of Damascene takes these things otherwise, and for that reason has led many into error. But the other authority of Damascene, which says: "We do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son," if we wish to receive it as authentic through the councils (though it is not so), as of the saints of whom we made mention above, we shall thus expound: "We do not say [it]," that is, "We do not chant [it]." Which is indeed true. For that clause, *Filioque procedit*, is altogether kept silent by them in the churches. Yet if emphasis is placed on the preposition *ex* (from), according to what it sometimes imports, [namely] the universal authority of a beginning, or the principal cause, it can be maintained. For that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, He has this from the Father; according to what we have testified in the preceding.
To the other authority of Epiphanius, however, which confesses the Spirit as being in the middle between the Father and the Son, we say it must be understood thus: that the Spirit is the bond and love of both. For Epiphanius himself, and all others with him, confess the Holy Spirit from both, as was noted above, and in a mediating order. Whence, when Epiphanius had said in the aforementioned authority, "not according to any composition, as with us soul and body, but in the middle of the Father and the Son," [he] immediately sub-
subjoined what the Greek had hidden: "The Spirit from the Father and the Son."
And Basil also, in the sermon which begins: *Non erat*, as it seems, etc., in the twenty-seventh chapter, the beginning of which is: *Sed forte dicet quis*, etc., thus testifies: "The Father truly is without beginning, and unbegotten, and is always understood. But from Him, according to proximity, without interval, the Only-Begotten is common to the Father. And through the Only-Begotten Himself, even with Him before other things, A a greater [thing], and subsisting, mediates to the intellect, [and] immediately also the Holy Spirit is comprehended by this connection. The Spirit is therefore called intermediate, as we have said, because He is the love of both. But He is ordered after the Son, because He proceeds from both."
Whence in the *Ancoratus* of Epiphanius: "The Father is always unbegotten, uncreated, incomprehensible: The Son, begotten, and always uncreated, and incomprehensible: The Holy Spirit, always not begotten, not created, not a brother, not from the Father a brother, not the offspring of the Father, not the offspring of the Son; but from the same essence of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit, the God of all."
Regarding that which was asked: "Who revealed this to you? Whence did you have it? Why was it not revealed to us? Why have you intruded such a thing into the Symbol," etc., because it has been shown in the preceding or has been answered and resolved, for that reason it is passed over here in silence.
Also regarding the authorities of the Gospel, which they interpret perversely, saying: "The Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son because He is sent by Him to sanctify creatures: or because He is consubstantial with Him," we respond thus: B We ask the Greeks: Was the Spirit from eternity the Spirit of the Son, or if they say "No," Gregory Thaumaturgus in his edition of the faith, which is read in his Life, announcing clearly in his sermon that the Spirit is the Son's from eternity, says: "Nor has the Son ever failed the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but the same Trinity is always unchangeable and unalterable."
Likewise Gregory the Theologian in his sermon on Pentecost, which begins thus, *De hac solemnitate breviter philosopremur*, around the middle of the sermon, thus testifies concerning the same Spirit: "The Holy Spirit was always, and is, and will be, and He neither began nor shall fail: but He is always coordinated and enumerated with the Father and the Son. Nor was it fitting for the Son to ever fail the Father, nor for the Spirit [to fail] the Son."
Likewise Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, concerning the perfect incarnation of the Word of God: "And since He assumes a soul and intellect, and although He is man." And concerning the Trinity after one leaf: "The Father was always, and the Son was always from the Father, and the Holy Spirit was always from the Father and the Son. And neither the Son [was] created, nor the Spirit a creature, etc., but from eternity, as the saints testify, the Spirit was the Son’s, and from the Son. How then does the Greek say that the Spirit of the Son is spoken of because He is sent to sanctify creatures, when from eternity there was no one to be sanctified, seeing that creatures begin in time? Therefore He is not called the Son’s because He is sent to sanctify creatures, but because He exists eternally from Him. But if He exists from Him eternally, [it is] either by generation, or by procession, as above."
But the Greek says again: The Holy Spirit is said to be the Son's because by reason of the divine essence He is consubstantial with Him.
Latin: Far be this delirium from the ears of the faithful. Because if for this reason He is said to be the Spirit of the Son, namely because He is C consubstantial with Him: by the same reason the Son Himself, and even the Father, would be called Holy Spirits, or from the Holy Spirit, because they are likewise consubstantial with Him.
Do you see, Greeks, whither these incongruous expositions of yours tend? For the first imitates the Macedonians, the second the Sabellian heretics. For the first ranks the Holy Spirit among creatures; the second confuses the order in the Trinity. Where then now is your glorification, seeing that you shamelessly boast of the beauty of knowledge, saying: "But if by occasion of certain words," and so on. But returning again to us, you will be able to hear the truth. Is this the truth of the primary truth, that leaving behind the sentiments of the holy Fathers, we should follow the Macedonians and Sabellians, heretics already condemned? What therefore is it? The Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, according to all who understand rightly, because He proceeds from Him: which is surely so true, that whoever feels or preaches the contrary, according to what will appear below, is in the way of perdition.
Because therefore with much effort the Greeks have striven to show that the Roman pontiff, and the whole Western Church, have fallen into the canon of excommunication, D and that they are justly and without any fault separated from us, and they have not been able to do so in the least: it remains now to show how they themselves have fallen into the snare which they themselves prepared for us, and whether they are to be called heretics, or only excommunicated, or, which is more to be lamented, whether both together. It shows that the Greeks have fallen into the canon because of the error concerning the Holy Spirit.
That they have fallen into the canon of excommunication is proved thus: It is now evident to all that they say the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, nor is He at all from Him: and that He is neither given by Him, nor sent, except temporally to sanctify creatures. And it is likewise evident, in all authentic Scriptures and received councils, that what we have said, namely, that the Holy Spirit is essentially from the Son, and proceeds from Him, is more manifestly contained. Which scriptures have been so received and approved by general councils, that whoever feels or preaches otherwise and contrary to them, is *ipso facto* and by law excommunicated.
A For the second council defines it thus: "We condemn and anathematize with all other heretics condemned and anathematized by the Catholic and apostolic Church, even Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, and likewise the impious writings of Theodoret against the true faith, and against the chapters of our blessed Father Cyril and of the third holy synod of Ephesus; and whatever was written at the suggestion of Theodore and Nestorius."
We have heard; the twelve chapters of the blessed Cyril, where especially the existence of the Holy Spirit from the Son is touched upon, have been so universally received that whoever holds contrary views of them, or preaches such, is *ipso facto* excommunicated along with the other heretics and those condemned of old. Cyril therefore says, in the ninth chapter of the aforementioned twelve: "If anyone says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, as using a power foreign to Him and given by Him, and receiving from Him, so that He might be able to work against unclean spirits and perform divine signs among men; let him be anathema." This same holy Father, interpreting this anathema, says thus: "The Only-Begotten Word of God, having become man, remained [what He was], and as God, being all that the Father is, except for alone being the Father, and having as His own that which is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit essentially inherent in Him, He worked those signs of divine power." This exposition, therefore, the third synod accepted, the fifth confirmed, and it excommunicated those who contradicted it; the universal Church holds, has held, and approved it. But the Greeks of our time contradict the ninth chapter of his expositions, and allege in their defense B the writings of the heretic Theodoret, who was excommunicated by the council; therefore, according to the force of the proposed definition, they are to be judged as heretics. Whence the blessed Augustine in the book *De fide ad Petrum*, when in the eighth chapter of the same he had confirmed by testimonies that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, at the end of all the chapters, he subjoined and said to Peter: "These forty chapters, belonging most firmly to the rule of the true faith, believe faithfully; hold strongly; defend firmly. And if you know anyone to dogmatize contrary to these, flee from him like a plague, and cast him out as a heretic." For these things which we have set forth so accord with the Catholic faith, that if anyone should wish to contradict not only all, but even individual parts, in what he stubbornly opposes to these individual parts, and does not hesitate to teach things contrary to them, he appears as a heretic and an enemy of the Christian faith, and on account of this, one to be anathematized by all Catholics.
Furthermore, for the same reason—that is, because with an obstinate spirit they deny the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, and many other errors as well in which they oppose the holy Roman Church—in the year of the incarnation of the Lord one thousand fifty-four, a sentence of excommunication was passed against them in the royal city of Constantinople. And the great altar of the church of the same city contains this very sentence posted, written by the legates of the apostolic see at the time of Pope Leo IX, as those who are near that city show, displaying the monuments of this event in Greek as well as in Latin. C But Pope Innocent III, in the edition which he made of the Catholic faith in our own times, presiding in the general council celebrated at the Lateran, and saying: "The Father from no one, the Son from the Father alone, the Holy Spirit from both," excommunicated and anathematized every heresy rising up against that which he composed: the holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith. But the Greek clearly rises up against the article concerning the Holy Spirit. Therefore, etc. Likewise: The falsifiers of authentic Scriptures are excommunicated by the councils; but they themselves falsify the Scriptures, and use false ones, and do so knowingly. Therefore, struck by the sword of anathema, they walk the path of damnation. And the blessed Athanasius in the Symbol of the True Faith, when he had said: "The Father is made from no one, nor created, nor begotten: The Son is from the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten; The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding," at the end of the book subjoined and said: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless everyone believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." But the Greeks do not believe what is contained therein; therefore, they cannot be saved.
But we, following the sentiments of the holy Greeks and Latins, believe and confess, sing, and write, and teach that the Father is from Himself, not from another: the Son is begotten from the Father alone: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son equally, and that they are at once three discrete, distinct, and perfect hypostases; but one essence, one deity, one power, one cause: from whom are all things, and by whom, and in whom are all things: and to Him is glory, and honor, and empire for ever and ever. D Amen.
Those indeed who say: "The Holy Spirit proceeds indeed from the Father, but not from the Son," or otherwise, and "more from the Father than from the Son," or "before from the Father than from the Son," and similar things, are contrary to the reason of the faith; and by asserting this, they believe, preach, and write, as has already for a long time been defined by the holy Fathers, we cast them out from the Catholic Church as heretics, and we avoid, curse, and reject them.
*Distinction concerning souls.*
The first article having been settled in the preceding, namely, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, in which, as [by] the individual cunning [arguments] of the Greeks' objections
A we have responded, and have also proved them to be not only misled as falsifiers of the truth from their own books, in which they boast and by which they incite themselves against the Roman Church, but also to have fallen into the Canon of broad judgment; perhaps we have been more prolix than necessary beyond our purpose. It remains now to see through those same testimonies where the souls of such people—that is, of the infidel and those who believe wrongly—are received upon departing from the body. For their opinion is, as we have said, that the souls of the reprobate go neither to the paradise of the good nor to hell before the day of judgment, following a certain inventor of this heresy, a former archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia by the name of Andrew, who says that they wait for their own bodies, so that with them, through whom they committed good or evil, they may similarly receive the retributions for their deeds. Who also, to confirm his erroneous opinion, introduces for his own sake the authority of the Apostle to the Hebrews, where it is said: And all these, having been proven by the testimony of faith, did not receive the promise, God providing something better for us, so that they should not be made perfect without us 51.
To this Andrew, the blessed John Chrysostom objects in his exposition of the same Epistle, and testifies to such things: «They indeed received [it] according to the due crowns. If we are all one body, a greater delight or enjoyment is produced for this body when they are crowned collectively and not particularly. For indeed, the just are also to be admired in B this, because they rejoice in the goods of their brothers as if in their own. And so this very thing is according to their will, that they be crowned together with their own members; for to be glorified together is a great enjoyment for them.» As if the saint were saying, in accordance with that passage in the Apocalypse: White robes were given to each of them 52, as they were pleading for vengeance for their own blood, that is, desiring a change for the better for their bodies. Single white robes, that is, the primary robe, which is the glorification of the soul: And it was said to them that they should rest for a little time yet, until the number of your brothers be filled 53; this will be at the end of the world, when, having resumed their glorious bodies, they will rejoice in both and from both. Then indeed the saints will have perfect joy, since, because they still have the eye of the mind on the natural body, their joy is judged by our holy doctors to be in some way imperfect.
The blessed Athanasius also, in his book of *Questions*, when he had been asked where the souls of the deceased now are, answered the inquirer: «It is an extraneous and fearful question, and hidden from men. For the Lord has not permitted any of those who are there to be released and come to us, where or how the souls of the deceased C are already taken.»
Furthermore, regarding that thief, John Chrysostom, interpreting that word of Luke: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise 56, speaks thus: «Some say that the thief has not yet attained the mansion of paradise, but that because of the firmness and immutability of the promise, they say the Lord said: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.» Others, however, force the matter to the word itself. For they say: We must read it distinctly and with punctuation thus: *Amen I say to thee, this day/ thou shalt be with me in paradise*; as if they suppose the promise to look to a future time. It is impossible, they say, for him to be in paradise now, since the Apostle says of the saints in the Epistle to the Hebrews: All these did not receive the promises, so that they should not be made perfect without us 57. And after a few words, the same saint adds, having rejected their opinions, saying: «And the thief indeed possesses paradise, or has attained it. For He who says: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise, cannot lie.»
Item, in the aforesaid book of *Questions*, when the inquirer said again: «Will not the souls that are already taken be mindful, just as the angels are mindful? The souls of the saints are indeed altogether mindful; but the souls of sinners, since they are in hell, are mindful neither of God nor of us.» And he added David saying to the Lord: For there is no one in death who is mindful of thee, but in hell who shall confess to thee 58? And again: Not the dead shall praise thee, O Lord, nor all who descend into hell 59.
The same saint in the aforesaid book, to another question put to him: What, namely, do the souls that are already taken do there now? answered: «The soul released from the body is able to effect neither good nor evil (13). For visions, which some see concerning those who are dead, the Lord shows by dispensation for our utility. For just as a lyre not having the one who plays it D lies idle and without work: so the soul and the body, separated from one another, can effect nothing. But the souls of the saints, moved or touched by the Holy Spirit, praise the Lord and exult together with the angels who live on earth.»
Behold, we have from these two great witnesses, Athanasius and Chrysostom, that the souls of the saints, according to the faith and hope of the Roman Church, reign even now with Christ; the souls of the reprobate, receiving the reward worthy of their deeds, are tormented in hell forever and ever.
That this was likewise once certain to the Church of the Greeks, the ancient Fathers took care to impress by manifest signs, not only in books, but even on the walls of their churches. For in certain paintings, we see angels of light carrying the souls of the saints into the heavens. In others, moreover, we find Satan’s angels dragging souls out of the bodies of the dying reprobate with a certain violence and carrying them away into the pit. Whence they have now fallen into such madness as to say that the departed neither enjoy the joys of paradise nor sustain infernal torments according to the variety of their merits, we do not know, but can only wonder. Especially since they fill the ears of the people with this in the services frequented in their churches. For they speak thus of the martyrs: «Most famous martyrs, the earth did not absorb or hide you, but heaven received you, and existing within, you have been rewarded with the tree of life; intercede with Christ that peace and great mercy may be granted to us.»
Item: «You who have suffered even unto death for the Word, athletes, truly possess your souls in the heavens in the hand of God, and are honored throughout the whole world. Priests and kings adore your relics, B and all the peoples, exulting, habitually cry out: Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.»
Item, in the same office, such things as these are sung: «The choir of the saints has found the fountain of life, the gate of paradise. I too shall find forgiveness through repentance; I am a straying sheep: call me back, Savior, and save me.»
Item: «Through you, who were slain like sheep while preaching the Lamb of God, you have been transplanted to the life that is without age and is everlasting. Seek this Lamb more attentively, O martyrs, granting to us the resolution of our debts.»
Item, in the Office of the Dead, they pray thus for the departed: «Grant rest, O God, to Your servants, and ordain them in paradise, where the choirs of the saints are, O Lord, and the just shine in glory.» Since these things are so, who of them can be excused for ignorance?
Of the four receptacles of the departed.
But if the Greeks desire to know anything more about the souls of the departed, let them read and understand their own books, and they will find four receptacles of the departed, namely, the empyrean heaven, which is also said to be true paradise, hell, limbo, and purgatory.
Let what has been said concerning the first and second suffice.
Regarding the third, Athanasius will answer in our place. For in the aforementioned book of his Questions, the question is again moved by the inquirer thus: Where, I ask, are the souls of departed children, and do they arrive either in torments or in the kingdom? And where are the children of the infidels? Where also are the unbaptized who have departed? Do they go with the believers or the infidels? Addressing these questions briefly, he replied to the inquirer: «Since our Lord says, 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven' (Matth. xix, 14); and again, the Apostle says, 'Now, however, your children are holy' (I Cor. vii, 14), it is manifestly certain that as cleansed and faithful, the baptized children of Christians enter the kingdom. But the unbaptized, and also the children of the gentiles, neither enter into the kingdom nor do they go into torments: for they are void of sin.» Since therefore the holy Father, in asserting this, says that the souls of unbaptized children neither enjoy the joys of paradise nor suffer the torments of hell, as they are without actual sins, he left in our understanding a third place, where the souls of such ones, by God’s command, are received after this life, in which, indeed, they experience neither the presence of good nor any sensible punishment of evil. And although the holy Father did not impose a name upon this place, nevertheless the holy Latins, such as Augustine, Gregory, and others, inasmuch as they were filled with the same Spirit, determining the name of the place, named this place the bosom of Abraham, or limbo, into which the holy Fathers descended before the coming of Christ. Now, however, the children who die without baptism are detained without sensible pain, as has been said.
Proof that there is a purgatory.
Regarding the fourth place, that is, purgatory, we find many testimonies of the holy Fathers. And first, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Apostle speaks: «For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid, even Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: every man’s work shall be made manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire» (I Cor. iii, 11–15).
When a certain one of their doctors explained the aforementioned place more attentively among them, he added: «We believe this fire to be *kathartērion*, that is, a purgatory, in which the souls of the departed are tested like gold in a furnace.»
Saint Macrina too, the sister of the blessed Basil, when she was imbued with liberal studies and filled with the Holy Spirit, among other things which she explained concerning the sacred learning of the divine Scriptures, testified thus regarding purgatory, saying: “It is necessary for the soul, made in the likeness of God, to return to Him; but it does not return unless it is purified; and it is purified by the fire prepared after this life.” A
This testimony is found in the treatises which are named after Macrina. But perhaps they will say to us: “We do not believe the testimony of women.” So be it! Let them hear, therefore, the brother of that same virgin, the great doctor of the Church, the blessed Gregory of Nyssa, and what and what kind of testimonies he brings forth concerning purgatorial fire in the sermon which is read on the first Saturday after Pentecost in commemoration of the dead. For he says: “If God were to violently and forcibly draw to His own good pleasure—that is, drag to Himself—human nature which, by the movement of free will, voluntarily precipitates itself indecently, this removal would indeed be a deprivation of the goodness already possessed and of the equal dignity of God. Free will is equal to God. Therefore, in order that the power of nature might remain and evil be abolished, the wisdom of God devised this plan: to leave man in those things in which he willed to be, so that, having tasted the evils which he has wrought, he might return again through voluntary desire to his former blessedness, laying aside and removing from his nature every vicious and irrational burden, being fulfilled through prayers and the observance of commandments either in the present life or, after this life, being thoroughly purged by the conflation of purgatorial fire.” B
Item, the blessed Basil, introducing the person of the dead speaking in the Office of the Dead, says such things: “I am an image of your ineffable glory. And if I bear the marks or stings of offenses, have mercy on your creation, Lord, and purge me through the bowels of your mercy; and grant me the desirable penance, making me a citizen of paradise again.” C
Item, Damascus, in the sermon on the dead, wishing to prove that alms, and prayers, and other benefits of the Church profit the departed, introduces, for example, the instance which is read in the Lives of the Fathers concerning a certain disciple of a certain Father, and says: “But when his disciple was dead, the old man, wishing to know what and how much that youth had merited in his life, began to pulse the ears of the Lord with the insistence of his prayers. And when these things were done for some spaces of hours, the old man saw the aforementioned youth immersed up to his throat in a river of fire. When, however, he persisted anxiously in prayer, he caught sight of him up to his waist. But at the final benefit of prayer, he saw him freed entirely.” D
But perhaps the Greeks will say: “We believe this fire to be the infernal fire, from which even some are freed by the virtue of prayer, as the emperor Trajan, who was sustained by the blessed Gregory, who is called the Dialogus.” But against this, the blessed Basil in the Office of the Dead confesses such things concerning the fruitless penance of those existing in hell: “Why are you troubled importunately, O man? One hour, and all things pass away: there is no repentance in hell; nor is there rest there. There is the worm that does not sleep; there is the earth that is dark and all of mist.”
Item, the blessed Athanasius, when it was asked of him by someone what those sins were which are washed away after death through prayers and other benefits and suffrages, answered concerning these: “The great Dionysius says thus: ‘If the sins of the departed are indeed light and subtle, they receive the benefit from the good works which are done for them: but if the sins of man are grave or shameful, God has concluded against him, or opposed him.’ Nevertheless, it behooves us to take care of our own souls, and not to hope to obtain remission of sins after death through other offerings.” These and similar testimonies are found in the Lives of the Fathers and in the Dialogues of the blessed Gregory, whom they likewise receive, concerning the souls of the departed: which sufficiently indicate that there is a place of purgatory after death, even if Paul were silent. The Greeks of our time, occupied with the solicitude of earthly things, not so much for themselves as for their wives and children, keep books—indeed beautiful and true, unless they have corrupted them—closed, or even quite unknown to themselves; whence they do not fear to contradict us, who preach the truth which they hold but are ignorant of, as if we were forgers of the Scriptures and were preaching new and unheard-of dogmas.
Others, however, with veiled brows, weighing out grand words, attempt to expound for their own sake the authority of the Apostle to the Corinthians, which is in fact contrary to them. For they say: “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. III, 11). The one foundation, as we have already said, is that cornerstone, Christ, upon whom the apostles and prophets have been built, and those who were in their time Fathers full of the Spirit of God. But the gold, and the silver, and the precious stones are the evangelical precepts, and the height of divine dogmas, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. Nevertheless, malicious sectaries—I mean heresiarchs—have attempted to build upon that immovable foundation, adulterating and corrupting the word of truth; that is, to graft onto it every material of perverse doctrine, thinking, if we may say so, that they are rendering a service to God in this. But the second coming of the Lord, or His apparition, will come, and certain useless works of construction of the other doctors will be consumed with detriment, or will be burned; but they themselves will thus be saved, yet so as by fire—inextinguishable fire, that is. Such a person, therefore, will be saved, will be healed, will be preserved by fire like adamant, which is never consumed by fire. Thus also the heretics themselves and malicious sectaries will be saved, not to be purged, but for punishments
to be endured. This, they say, is the true exposition and the intent of the authors.
To this, although it has been sufficiently determined above, we respond in two ways. First, through the power of the word which is spoken, "shall be saved." For this word, which rendered into Latin sounds as *soleo*, signifies salvation properly, that is, liberation from all grievance; which is never, and especially in punishment, conservation. And since the Greek language is most abundant and copious, the significations of words are so appropriated to their own terms that one is never, or very rarely, especially in Holy Scripture, put for another. Whence they have defined one thing as A *custodire* [to guard], another as *conservare* [to preserve], and another as *sanare* [to heal]. For the first they say *phylasso*, the second *tereo*, and the third *sozo*, which they defined as salvation, that is, liberation from all trouble, which is for the elect: the very word the Apostle used in the aforementioned authority. Thus *sozo*, whence *soteria* [salvation] and *soter* [Savior]. Wherefore this expositor of the aforementioned authority of the Apostle either was ignorant of the virtue of the words, or, what must rather be presumed, knowing and prudent, he maliciously concealed the truth of the faith.
Secondly, we respond that the preposition of this word, "through" [per], is taken either causatively or instrumentally. In whichever of these ways it is taken, adamant is never, according to them, "saved" through fire; because it does not have this from the fire, that the stone is preserved unharmed, but rather from a nature so implanted in it by God that it cannot be corrupted by the element of fire. Similarly, even though man is corruptible, he will not have this from the fire or by the grace of fire, so that he may be tormented in fire throughout eternity while living, but, God commanding, against nature and for his own evil, he will receive such a thing after the resurrection that he will exist living eternally B without end through fire and in fire, not to be "saved," that is, preserved, according to the Greeks, but rather to be tormented. We say, therefore, that a man is saved when he is liberated from the stains of venial sins by means of that temporal and purgatorial fire, so that in this way, clearly, the soul, purged or cleansed of its own stains, may one day be presented worthy of the sight of the Judge. For it is written, *Nothing defiled shall enter into it*; but the soul carries the defilements of venial sins, as was shown above through that antiphon: *I am an ineffable image*, etc. Therefore, it is only accepted [to enter] once purged. And just as we have in the case of the rich man and Lazarus, that he received the irrefutable answer that no one could pass from the place of torments, therefore he must be purged elsewhere. We call this place the place of purgatory, to which souls pass who, while they were still living, did not fully satisfy for their excesses. We have, therefore, from the aforementioned, four receptacles of the dead: that is, the paradise of the good, the hell of the damned, the limbo of unbaptized children, and the purgatory of the penitent.
Incipit the third distinction. Concerning the sacrament of the altar.
Having spoken above C of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which the Greeks deny, and of paradise, and hell, and also of purgatory, concerning which they similarly think incorrectly: let us now consequently see concerning the sacrament of charity, that is, the Eucharist. But because they seem to put forward certain frivolous reasons in defense of their error, those things which, under the pretext of piety, nourish an error of this kind—so that they are refuted not only by the reasons and authorities already seen, but that we might also declare whence and from whom they had their origin—must be postponed, so that when they appear without the strength of firmness, like a house without a foundation, at the slightest impulse of the faithful, their whole structure of iniquity may be exposed to ruin.
Therefore, in the year from the incarnation of the Lord one thousand fifty-three, in the time of Pope Leo IX, there was a certain patriarch in the royal city of Constantinople, named Michael Cerularius. This man, indeed, having followed in all things his predecessor, the Patriarch Photius, who previously attempted to lift his proud neck against the Supreme Pontiff, strove as much as he could, even if D not as much as was permitted, to invite the Latins, who at that time were living in the same city under the Greek emperor, to the rites of the Greeks, and especially to sacrifice in leavened [bread], finally through ecclesiastical censure. But because such a great wickedness could not long remain hidden from the Roman Curia, legates were sent by the Supreme Pontiff to the aforementioned city, who, restraining such an impetuous fury by the authority of the Apostolic See, struck him and his followers with the sword of anathema. From that time, therefore, the Greeks, moved by the stings of greater envy, edited many books or treatises for the confusion of the Roman Church and strictly commanded that they be read by their successors as authentic and possessing the firmness of the Catholic faith; those, however, who presumed to dogmatize the contrary in these matters, they mandated be denounced annually in the churches, by the voice of a herald—which is still observed in their conventual churches to this day—as heretics.
The Greeks, therefore, following this Michael to this day, do not fear to call the Latins "Azymites" [unleavened-users] by public voice. Whence the mystery of the sacrament has come to such blindness and contempt among them that not only do they refuse to receive from it at the point of death, but they even choose to suffer the punishment of fire rather than simply to confess it. Cyprus proves this, who in our times brought twelve Greek monks, laboring under this error, as new martyrs of the devil, through the flames of fire. For the aforementioned monks said that the sacrament of the Latins was mud, and not a sacrament, and that those sacrificing or receiving from it were, in the manner of the gentiles, offering sacrifice to demons. The reasons, however, which they allege against the Latins, and by which they seem to defend themselves, are these.
Reasons of the Greeks against those who consecrate in unleavened bread.
First, they say that our Lord, who commanded this to be done in his memory, did not deliver it to his disciples in unleavened bread, but in leavened bread. For it is certain that according to the law of Moses, the immolation of the lamb and the eating of unleavened bread took place on the fourteenth day of the moon, as it is written in Leviticus A, which day was properly called the Passover. But the Lord, according to the Gospel of John, celebrated it before the day of the feast of the Passover. He took the supper with his disciples and delivered the mystery of his body and blood. If on such a day, which was the thirteenth day of the moon, he celebrated the Passover, then they were using leaven; therefore, it was from leavened bread that he delivered his body.
Item: They did not enter the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover. But then it was the fourteenth day of the moon: therefore, on the preceding day, it was the thirteenth day of the moon, when the Lord delivered his body, and hence as before.
Item: When the evangelist made mention of the matter of that bread, he did not say: Jesus took unleavened bread, but: Jesus taking bread. And "bread" implies leavened bread. Therefore, etc.
The same on John: "Not therefore, as it seemed to others who think differently, did the Lord Saviour, who himself also says: I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, anticipate his Passover: but he fulfilled all things in the due time and manner." Therefore, the Lord kept the Passover with his disciples, as the evangelist testifies, when he kept it with unleavened bread and the immaculate lamb, as it is written in the law.
Item: Theophylact, Bishop of Bulgaria, expounding that which is read to the Corinthians: When you come together into one place, etc., says thus: "I cannot but concede, when the Lord himself delivered his body to his disciples from the bread which he had, namely unleavened, when it was the days of Unleavened Bread, if according to the Gospels and the opinions of the holy Fathers B the Lord celebrated the Passover at the due time; wherefore then did it appear leavened against the law? For as it is written in Exodus: Seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses. But if we believe the words of Truth saying: I have not come to destroy the law, etc., it must be believed, and preached, that the Lord Jesus did not pass over one iota, nor one tittle of the law, and that, immune from the whole transgression, he said to his ensnarers: Which of you shall convict me of sin? Otherwise he would neither have taken away the sins of many, nor prayed for the transgressors that they might not perish, nor suffered for us, but would have been justly punished for his own prevarication, especially since he would not only have been found a transgressor of the law with leaven then found with him; but besides he would have made many disciples guilty of death, feeding them with leaven, and in injury to the divine law; which is impossible."
Item: Since it is written that the paschal lamb ought to be eaten standing and with wild lettuces and in haste, no such thing is found in the Gospel. Whence it is certain that that supper was not the Passover of the Jews, but rather the supper and Passover of the Christians, and it was celebrated not with unleavened C, but with leavened bread, which signifies the perfection of Christ. For Christ our Lord united two natures in one person to himself, and as the divine is most simple, so the human is composed of soul and body, or flesh. As therefore in Christ there was and is divinity, soul, and body: so in the mystery of our sacrament, which is perfected from perfect bread, that is, leavened, likewise three things are found, namely, form, leaven, and water. Your sacrament, however, not only is not a true sacrament, but is not even a sacrament at all, which so departs from the truth. These are the reasons which I recall having found in their books, and having heard from their own mouth in disputation.
Response to the reasons of the Greeks.
To the first objection, therefore, we answer thus: That the Lord kept the Passover at the due time and in the due manner, or not. If they say not, against this John Chrysostom, in the eighty-fourth homily on Matthew, says thus: "For Christ does not transgress the time of the Passover, but the Jews, who presume all things, trample upon Christ and the laws; because they were burning with fury and, often trying to kill him, they could not: then, taking him unexpectedly, they even wanted to dismiss the Passover, to fulfill their homicidal D will. For which reason they are all gathered together," etc.
Whence, although the chief priests had sought false testimony against him, to hand him over to death, yet they did not bring against him any such thing as the Greeks now bring forward. For if it had been brought forward, it alone would have sufficed to condemn him. Nor, when Pilate said: Take him you, and judge him according to your law, would they have said: It is not lawful for us to kill any man, because they would have killed a partaker of leaven according to the precept of the law, and would have said: We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he ate leaven in the Passover, or at any rate it appeared with him.
But perhaps the Greek says: He did not do this in public, but in secret. Far be it! For not only regarding his deeds, but also regarding his words, he says to the high priest himself: I have spoken openly to the world, and in secret I have spoken nothing. Why ask me? Ask those who have heard. But also, did the master of the house, in which he celebrated the Passover, lie hid? Or indeed, if he himself consented, could Judas, the accomplice of the wicked, have lain hid? Who, according to the voice of the Psalmist: My friend and my acquaintance is called [my guide]; especially since he was the steward, whom the Lord to his beloved
John demonstrates, saying: He is the one to whom I shall reach the morsel when I have dipped it; and: He who dips his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me. But if this is so, what kept wretched Judas from publicly bearing witness to the aforementioned blood of the just man, which he was in every way seeking to betray secretly? Or what necessity had he to say: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood? Since, by betraying a transgressor of the law, he turned away from himself and from the people the wrath of the Lord, and earned grace? For as it is written in Deuteronomy: If any prophet, or your son, or daughter, or your wife, or the friend whom you love as your own soul, shall secretly attempt to persuade you, that you should turn away A from the ceremonies of the laws, do not consent to them, nor hear them, nor let your eye spare him, nor have pity, and you shall conceal him, and you shall forthwith kill him in the sight of the people, so that the Lord may turn away from the fury of his wrath, and have mercy on you, and multiply you, etc.
But the Greeks say again: If the Almighty is believed in, could he not have produced leaven from somewhere, or certainly, while blessing it, have turned the unleavened bread into leavened? How frivolous this is, there is no one who does not understand: for in whatever way leaven might have appeared with him during that solemnity, he would have become a transgressor of the law, and clearly deserving of punishment, for having treated leaven in contempt of the holy law. And if such a great miracle had been performed in any way, some one of the evangelists would have narrated it; whereas they have diligently narrated even the smallest matters, not so worthy of narration, as for instance the contention of the disciples. Everything, therefore, concerning the beginning of the necessary sacrament, which exists as the foundation of the whole Church, they would not have kept back in such an obstinate silence. Hence, although he is almighty, this he could not do, because he would not. Why? Because he did not wish to B transgress the law. Whence? I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. That, however, his omnipotence is bound by a necessary reason is proved by the evangelist Matthew, saying of the fatherland of Christ: He could not perform miracles there, on account of their unbelief.
*Response to the authority of John*
To the second objection concerning the authority of John: That they did not enter, etc., we say that the term Pascha is interpreted in many ways. For sometimes it is the day of immolation: hence in Leviticus: On the fourteenth day **D** at evening is the Lord's Pascha; and in Matthew: You know that after two days shall be the Pascha. Sometimes it is the lamb that is sacrificed, as: Where do you wish that we prepare for you to eat the Pascha? At other times it is the day of the unleavened bread, as it is had in the Acts of the Apostles concerning Peter: He wished to bring him forth to the people; for they were the days of unleavened bread. Sometimes, however, it is the unleavened loaves, as here: They did not enter into the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pascha, that is, the loaves A of unleavened bread. Whence, although the Lord said to his disciples: You know that after two days the Pascha will be, etc., Matthew, however, making mention of that very day, in whose evening the Pascha occurred, says: On the first day of the unleavened bread the disciples came, etc. Concurring with him, Mark says: Now the Pascha and the unleavened bread were after two days. And a little later: On the first day of the unleavened bread, when they were sacrificing the Pascha, etc. If, therefore, it appeared that Pascha and the unleavened bread are not to be taken as meaning that sometimes Pascha is to be understood as the feast of unleavened bread, and sometimes the feast of unleavened bread as Pascha; how will it stand: The Pascha and the unleavened bread were after two days? But the blessed Luke, resolving the whole controversy of the heresy, says: The day of the unleavened bread, which is called the Pascha, was approaching; and because along with that which was properly called Pascha, the following days of the unleavened bread are also abusively called Pascha, he shows in the following which day he wished to be understood, saying: Now the day of the unleavened bread came, in which it was necessary for the Pascha to be killed. This clearly took place on the fourteenth moon at evening, when the lamb was killed; which the evangelist reported to be called Pascha, so that he said it was to be killed on the Pascha itself.
Furthermore, in what way should one understand what it says: That they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Pascha? A little later it says: Now it was the Preparation of the Pascha, about the sixth hour. The Preparation of the Pascha is interpreted as the preparation for the Pascha: since it was already being prepared, and the celebration of the great Sabbath was imminent, which was then held by the Jews to be more celebrated B than all the paschal days, so much so that its observance would be defiled by the cohabitation of a gentile man, such as entering the praetorium. Therefore: That the bodies might not remain on the cross on the Sabbath, they asked Pilate that they be taken down. Therefore, Pascha, in the aforementioned authority, is taken for the unleavened loaves: which being necessarily granted, the objection of the adversaries ceases.
*Solution to the third*
To the third, that they say that *artos* is supposed to stand for leavened bread, we say that they differ much from the truth: because *artos* in Sacred Scripture is taken not only for unleavened bread, but also for any bread whatsoever, as will appear in the following. It is written in Luke that when the Lord appeared in the guise of a stranger, he was constrained by the two disciples to sit down to eat, and afterwards: He took the *artos*, and blessed it, and what follows. But it is certain that these things were done on the day of the Resurrection, that is, on the day of the unleavened bread, which according to the law lasted for seven days, in which not only could leavened bread not be eaten, but it could not be found either in the houses or in all those borders. It is certain, therefore, that this bread, which according to the Greeks is called *artos*, was not leavened, but unleavened. *Artos*, therefore, stands for unleavened bread.
And we find this same thing in Leviticus, where Moses makes mention of the showbread, which was unleavened, according to the Law*. Likewise, where he says: Ye shall eat unleavened bread with wild lettuces*, which in the Greek has: ye shall eat *artos*. Likewise in Wisdom, where the Scripture speaks of the heavenly bread, that is, manna, prepared from heaven*, etc., the Greek says: *artos*. Likewise the Psalmist, where we say: The bread of angels*, in the Greek it is held as *arton angelōn*. Likewise Solomon: Sweet is the bread of deceit*. Behold, it is manifest that this name "bread" is understood indifferently, both for unleavened and for leavened; and as much for that which fills the belly as for that which satisfies the mind—that is, the desire of man—whether in good or in evil.
But the Greek says again: The truth must correspond to the shadow. But the typical lamb was sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the moon at evening. Therefore, the fourteenth day of the moon was on the day of Preparation, because the true Lamb was sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the moon. Therefore, even on the preceding Thursday it was the thirteenth day of the moon, and then Christ kept His Pasch. Therefore, Christ ate unleavened bread at the Pasch.
We say that the truth corresponds to the shadow, because in the typical Pasch there were two things, namely, the sacrifice of the lamb and the eating. The typical lamb was sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the moon; and the sacrifice of the true Lamb began on the fourteenth day of the moon, when the Lord was seized. And the sacrifice corresponds to the sacrifice. The eating also corresponds entirely to the eating; because the typical lamb was eaten on the fourteenth day of the moon, and the Lord gave His body to His disciples.
If, however, it is objected regarding the women, that they prepared spices, which they would not have done on a feast day: it must be said that works of mercy were not prohibited, but only servile works, as the Lord said concerning the Magdalene: Let her be, that she may keep it against the day of my burying*. Likewise, it was permitted to circumcise on the Sabbath day, because this was a spiritual work, not a servile one, as is said in Matthew XI, 5: The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath by circumcising a man, and are without blame.
But if they oppose us regarding the Sabbath day: Because that day was great*, it must be said that the Sabbath day was called great because it was the day of the Sabbath, and furthermore the feast of unleavened bread; not because it was the first of the unleavened bread, for all those seven days were great; yet the first and the last were greater. This day, however, was called great because, as has been said, two things concurred, namely the Sabbath and the feast of Unleavened Bread, that is, one day of the seven days. Regarding this, that the Jews cried out: Not on the feast day; therefore it was not a feast when the Lord was crucified, we say that although they cried out, yet they acted against themselves, A as transgressors of the Law. Therefore, on the first day of the unleavened bread, they had Christ killed.
*Response to the other matter.*
To that which follows, since those three things which are in Christ, namely the body, and the soul, and the divinity, if that fable were in any way worthy of an answer, we can say that besides those three, two other properties could be assigned to their leavened bread. For in leavened flour there is salt, water, and fire, without which bread can never reach its essence. And thus not a trinity, as they falsely claim, but a quaternity and quinary number is found in leavened bread.
But in our sacrament, in which nothing is superfluous, even according to its significations, only three things are found, namely flour, water, and fire, by means of which the flour and water are conjoined. Flour stands for the flesh; water for the soul; fire, however, for the divinity, both of which He assumed into the unity of His person. But what is this to us regarding these old wives' fables? Let the Greeks listen on this matter to the blessed Gregory in his Dialogues, regarding what and how he answered those who detracted from the sacrament in the Greek tongue, when he was serving in Greece on an embassy. He says: "Truly is a question wont to be moved, that in the Church some offer leavened [bread]; others, unleavened bread. For we know the Church to be distinct in four orders, namely, of the Romans, Alexandrians, Hierosolymitans, and Antiochians: C which Churches are generally called [apostolic], though they hold one catholic faith, they yet use different mysteries of offices. Whence it comes to pass that the Roman Church offers unleavened bread, for the reason that God took on flesh without any commixture. It is written: The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us*. So, therefore, the body of Christ is made by unleavened bread. For the other aforementioned Churches offer leavened, for the reason that the Word of the Father was clothed in flesh, and is true man; so that the leaven is commingled with the flour, and the body of our Lord Jesus Christ is made true. But both the Roman Church and the aforementioned, for the ineffable mystery, whether we partake of leavened or unleavened [bread], it becomes one body of our Savior." These are the words of Gregory, which are found in his Life in the Greek tongue (15).
But John Chrysostom, when he wished to remove such a dispute from the midst, in a certain letter of his, which he sent from Constantinople to the Greeks who were doubting regarding the sacrament and other customs of the Latins, says thus: "We wishing to say something concerning the sacred communion, whether it was made from unleavened or leavened [bread] at the sacred Lord's supper, [belongs to] a longer time, and even more perfect D
writing. But setting aside many things, [we shall say] that which is useful and peaceable—indeed, to put it even more accurately, that which is more according to the dispensation and more necessary, and which contains the truth—namely, that bread, before it is consecrated and perfected, whether it be unleavened or leavened, is indifferently bread and is so called in the sacred Scriptures, as we shall later demonstrate. After it has been consecrated, it is neither unleavened nor leavened; but it is the body and blood of the Lord, nothing other than that which was assumed by the Word from the incorrupt Virgin and placed at the right hand, and which is mystically received by us orthodox and Catholics—for which reason it is also called a mystery, that is, hidden. And therefore, to some this sacrament is incomprehensible; but it is changed by divine power through the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, according to what the sacred secret itself indicates and also makes manifest. We say, namely: "We pray to you, Holy of holies, that by your good pleasure your Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon all these your gifts (or offerings) and bless and sanctify them, and show this bread to be the precious body of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ."
If, therefore, divine power, or God, transmutes the proposed gifts into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, it is superfluous to contend whether it was from unleavened [bread] or leaven, whether it was white, or perhaps red wine, and to inquire into certain such foolish curiosities about these fearful and tremendous mysteries B. Since some of them wish, from the mere etymology of the name, that unleavened bread is not *artos*, that is, bread, we shall briefly dispute this: "For *artos* is said from *artios*, that is, perfection: but unleavened bread is not perfect, because it lacks leaven: therefore it is not *artos*. But the Lord blessed the *artos*." Such is the marvelous machinery of their syllogism, which, since it is of no value, infirm, and weak, we shall make no reply to, lest by seeming to make a defense of it, which is the province of rational science in us, we speak much and uselessly. But from the holy Gospels we shall prove that the unleavened is called *artos*, or we shall show that the etymology of these men is false. For it is written in Luke: "And it happened, while he was reclining with them." And after a little: "They recognized him in the breaking of the *artos*." C Behold, there he called the unleavened *artos*. But that it was indeed that unleavened bread which was then given to Cleopas and his companion in Emmaus, is manifest from this. After the immolation of the lamb, the Jews ate unleavened bread for seven days, during which days fermented bread was not found among them. And after seven days, the Lord blessed that bread, of which we have made a memory, in Emmaus, as the holy Scriptures indicate: and on this third day, on which these things were done, but within seven days, that day was. Therefore, it is called *artos*, as has been shown, [and] unleavened. For this name *artos* is a genus of [both] leavened and unleavened; and it is predicated of both, as of species. From these words, therefore, as has been said, of Chrysostom and others alleged for this matter, it is gathered quite manifesty that the holy ancient Fathers, both Greeks and Latins, thought as piously and safely about the sacrament of the altar as they did about other articles of faith, just as the Roman Church does. But the modern Greeks, because they have wished to cast off the yoke of obedience to the said holy Roman Church from their neck unjustly, do not fear to preach that it is entangled in many errors. But because they also do not fear to cloak their own pertinacious rebellion with certain reasons of their own: we shall bring forward a few things out of many to answer what their books claim against it.
The fourth distinction. In which it is shown that the pope is the head of the Church.
One must know, however, that in order to prove obedience and due reverence to the Roman Church, we must inquire, first: "From whom did the Church have this power? second, when? third, whether over all universally, or particularly?"
As to the first, we distinguish: That it had it either from God, through Peter, or from secular princes; or from all three of these at the same time; or from general councils; or from none of these; but the Church uses an usurped honor violently and unworthily. And the Greeks concede this last. And they say that no apostle was greater than another: but all were equals and brothers, according to that: "But you are all brothers, and do not call [anyone] father upon earth, for one is your Father in heaven."
To which we reply, saying that the Lord here does not remove the office of prelacy, since the apostle Paul says: "Obey your leaders, and be subject to them," but [instead] the lust for dominating. Whence he did not say "Do not appoint": "Do not be called": therefore, when we choose a shepherd of the Church, we do not choose for ourselves a father, or mother simply, but rather a vicar of our true Father and Master, who is in heaven, not indeed whom we wish to choose, but whom God has established and ordained to be given, according to the sanctions and canons of his apostles, according to that: "No one takes the honor to himself, but he who is called by God, as Aaron." Whence the Gloss upon that place: "Do not call [anyone] your father upon earth," says thus: "What is owed to God, do not presume to give to yourselves; and do not call others Rabbi, nor offer divine honor to men." Item, another Gloss: "God is called Father and Master, for by indulgence [he is] Father, that honor might be deferred to age, [but] he is not held to be the author of life: [he is] master...
from the association of the true Master like His messenger, and for the reverence of Him who sends him, he is honored.
Peter, however, had the prerogative of dignity over the apostles, and the fullness of authority over all men. This is proved as follows: In the Gospel of John, when the Lord had asked Peter three times, individually and specially, whether he loved Him, he heard: "Feed my sheep" (John xxi, 17). Regarding which passage John Chrysostom said: "Because, therefore, it was the end of the Supper, He commits to Peter the prefecture of all the world, He gives it to no other, but to him alone. Why? Because he is the preeminent one of all and the head of the whole choir. And therefore also, that He may show him that he can be confident, as though the denial were blotted out; because He neither reproaches him for it, nor brings it to the fore: but: If you love me, preside over the brethren, and the fervent love, which you said you had for me so that you wished to die for me, now show it. He asks him three times, at the same time [showing] what care he has for the sheep committed to him." And after some things he says to him: "Follow me" (Ibid. 22). He truly committed to Peter the prelation of all the faithful. For although James assumed the Jerusalem see, Peter nevertheless [held that] of the whole world: as if to say: Holy James was called in the parts of Jerusalem; but Peter in the fullness of authority. Whence in the mandate: "I will give you the keys" (Matth. xvi, 19), to you distinctively as if from others, I will give the keys. Regarding which John Chrysostom [says] thus: "Just as the Father gave to you the revelation of the confession of the true faith; so I will give to you the heavenly keys. He entrusted therefore the dignities of divine things to Peter, existing authoritatively on earth, and entering the heavenly." Item Chrysostom: "And indeed, passing over the others, He arranges concerning the sheep to this one, that is, Peter, since he is the prince of the apostles, and the head of the choir. On account of which Paul ascended to Jerusalem, then to see him above others." These are the words of Chrysostom.
In certain codices, however, there are found [things] which seem to savor of the idea that the Lord entrusted the same authority not only to Peter, but also to the apostles commonly. Regarding which we wished the reader to be admonished, that he may have [a way] by which he ought to answer adversaries, if any things are found placed in the Gloss of Chrysostom, which say that the fullness of authority was not entrusted to Peter alone, but to all the others—let whosoever reads [it] say without any doubt that those are not the words of Chrysostom, but rather of Theophylact, archbishop of the Bulgarians, who was sent by Photius, at the time of the schism, into Bulgaria, so that he might recall the Bulgarians themselves, at that time devoted and obedient to the Roman Church, to the rites and obedience of the Greeks. Which was also done. This Theophylact, therefore, when he had abbreviated almost all the writings of the blessed John Chrysostom by his own ingenuity, whatever seemed to make for the Church of the Latins, he either altogether passed over in silence, or, by adding his own, corrupted the true understanding. Nevertheless, some originals of Chrysostom are found still unharmed in the archives of the Greek monasteries.
Item, the Greeks in their own office testify such things concerning the apostles Peter and Paul, singing praise to each: "To Peter, who are divided in body (16), they are united in spirit. To the preposites of divine preachers; to Peter indeed as the prince of the apostles; to Paul however as [one] laboring beyond the others." A Item, the Lord in the Gospel concerning Peter: "You shall be called Cephas" (John i, 42), which rendered in Latin sounds *head*; so that by the very imposition of the name He might demonstrate him to be the head of the Church. Which the sacred treaters of the faith considering, wherever they made any mention of Peter, they named him *koryphaion tōn apostolōn*, that is, the head or vertex of the apostles, or the apex. Which prerogative of the name I have never read elsewhere. Although Germanus of Nicaea, B the archbishop—this one, namely, who recently died—in certain of his letters, which he recently transmitted against the faith of the Latins, also named the apostle Paul *koryphaion tōn apostolōn*. Because, however, a certain Greek bishop testified that he had never heard such an abuse, whence he also mocked the man. But be it so. What is that to the point? For the Roman pontiff has merited to be the successor not only of Peter, but also of Paul. To Peter he succeeded in the power of the keys, to Paul in the discussion of causes. For as Peter received from the Lord the authority of binding and loosing, so did Paul [receive] the fullness of knowledge. C And although all the apostles received from the Lord the keys of binding and loosing, no one however claimed to himself the power of fullness at any time. They are indeed called into a share of the solicitude, just as archbishops by the pope, bishops by archbishops, and priests by bishops. Whence it came about, that the successors of the other apostles are called, not supreme pontiffs, but archprelates, or archbishops. The Roman pontiff, however, because he succeeded to Peter, that is, to Christ’s vicar, is not undeservedly called supreme pontiff and pope, which is to say, Father of Fathers, D singularly.
The bishops of other places also, in which he himself personally presided, as at Antioch, or to which he sent his vicar, as Mark to Alexandria, and likewise to Caesarea of Palestine, where he ordained a council, and committed his own duties to him, on account of the reverence of Peter merited a singular privilege and dignities beyond the other Churches, so that the bishops of the said Churches were named by all, not only as bishops or archbishops, but as patriarchs, that is, princes of the Fathers, or principals, by an appropriate term. If indeed it is asked, Whence then do Jerusalem and Constantinople have a patriarch? we respond:
In the first general council, the holy Fathers who were present, considering the reverence of the place—of Jerusalem, that is, which the Redeemer of all deigned most piously to consecrate with His presence and His own blood—granted by dispensation to the bishop of that place honor of this kind and a patriarchate of this kind. For they said: “We decree that the bishop of Aelia, because of the reverence for the Lord, shall have the preeminence or prerogative of the honor of a patriarchate: saving the right and reverence of the metropolis,” that is, of the archbishop of Caesarea in Palestine. And this was done because the centurion Cornelius, as we have said, ordained bishop there by the apostle Peter, exercised A in his own lifetime the office of that same apostle, the prince of the apostles. The sixtieth-fifth distinction holds it thus, that ancient custom and venerable tradition have obtained that honor should be deferred to the bishop of Aelia, that is, Jerusalem, and that he should consequently have honor, while the proper dignity of the metropolitan city remains.
Constantinople “properly has no see;” but the emperor Theodosius in the second council gathered the hundred and fifty Fathers, secretly from the Supreme Pontiff, without whose consent it could not be done, as will be plain to those who read this tract, so that they might elevate the see of Constantinople, attributing to it the name of a patriarchate, which it did not have before. In the process of time, however, as the malice of the Greeks grew and their power increased, the Fathers who had gathered in the fourth council, by the persuasion of the emperor Marcian, conferred upon the same bishop of Constantinople certain privileges similar to those of the Roman see, and this name [*oikoumenikos*] C patriarch, which signifies "orbicular" or "universal patriarch," notwithstanding the opposition of the legates of the apostolic see. And, that he should have the first place after the pope: since the archbishop of Alexandria had originally held that dignity, in the first, and second, and third councils, because of the reverence for blessed Mark, the disciple of blessed Peter. However, because those things were defined in the councils without the consent of the pope, or of his legates, they could not have the strength of stability; the said Fathers of the fourth council, transmitting everything they had done to him, humbly requested their confirmation. But because the Greeks arrogated to themselves such a name of ambition and a power usurped unduly, not without great injury to the other patriarchs and especially to the pope; therefore blessed Pope Leo in no way wished to grant his assent to the petition of the council, but wrote to them thus (17): “We have permitted a synod to be gathered concerning matters of faith, and that the canons of the holy Fathers be preserved, which were issued in the Nicene synod with unshaken dogmas. Wherefore, I say, I make known to your sanctity that we wish the Churches to remain as they were issued by those three hundred and eighteen Fathers inspired by God; so that shameless ambition may seek for nothing.” From then, regarding Anatolius A the bishop of that city, who sought confirmation of his own dignity, and complaining to the legates of the apostolic see because they did not consent to the aforementioned ordination, he speaks thus: “But you accuse yourself, because you did not wish to obey them (the legates), while you strive after illicit things; fruitlessly desiring what should not be granted and unwholesomely longing for contrary things, which could never obtain our consent. For it is far from my conscience that such a wicked desire should be assisted by my efforts,” etc. These things were written in the acts of the fourth council, of which we spoke above.
But Gregory the Dialogist, in reprimanding the bishop of the same city regarding the alms-giving that he dared to have such a name, writes thus in his Register: “Moreover, when that name was offered to the Roman Pope by the councils, he never wished to accept it.” And after a few words: “It will suffice for you,” he says, “that we have given you the dignity of patriarchs, whereas you have no see.” He calls a “see” the authority of Peter, that is, the place which, by presiding over it himself or through another, he rendered authoritative and venerable, so that it might deservedly be called an apostolic see. Constantinople has always sought this. For which reason it is not numbered or counted among the apostolic sees. Whence Pope Leo B in the fourth council wrote thus to the emperor Marcian, concerning Anatolius, the bishop of the aforementioned city, who was rashly usurping a right not granted to him: “It is sufficient for the aforementioned, namely Anatolius, that by the help and zeal or anxiety of your piety, he obtained the bishopric of so great a city by our assent: nor should he make himself unworthy to possess a royal city: which indeed he will not be able to make an apostolic place or see. But let him not in any way hope that by offending others he can grow himself. For the prerogatives of the honors of the holy churches, established by the canons of the Fathers and by the decrees of the venerable synod celebrated at Nicaea, can in no way be moved by any audacity of rashness, nor changed by any novelty.” Whence blessed Gregory the Dialogist says, when making mention of the general sees, as was shown above in the treatise on the sacrament of the Eucharist, that the Church is distributed into four orders, that is, of the Romans, the Hierosolymitans, the Alexandrians, and the Antiochians: which, I say, is generally named the Church.
With things being thus, the opposition of certain Latins appears to be much weakened, who say that they are called patriarchates because the apostles presided in these places. But because an apostle presides, that is, Peter, either per se or through his vicar, what is said might be valid. If they wish it to be understood simply, we do not see how it can stand, since there would be more than these. Nor would all the above-named places be adorned with patriarchal honor. For none of the apostles sat at Constantinople or Alexandria, except the disciple of Peter, holy Mark D.
For Barnabas sat at Milan, having been elected an apostle of the Gentiles with blessed Paul, and some of the apostles were specially placed in charge of certain regions. But if the sitting of certain apostles and disciples of the Lord were to create a see, it would necessarily follow, as we have said, that there would be more than five patriarchs in the world. But since we do not see this, it follows that the grace of Peter caused the sees of the aforementioned cities to deserve honors of this kind above other churches. Peter received the fullness of power and passed it on to his successors by a successive right, so that whoever is in that see—which, so to speak, he consecrated for the Lord by the martyrdom of his cross—and is elected according to the canon, is not undeservedly recognized as Christ’s vicar. So that this may be made known to those ignorant of ancient history, we bring forward a few things out of many in some way.
For Pope Leo A writes to the holy Fathers gathered in the fourth council thus: "The emperor sent to us, that we might provide our presence for the venerable synod; which indeed neither the necessity of the time nor any custom could allow. Nevertheless, in these brethren—Paschasinus and Lucentius, bishops, and Boniface and Basil, presbyters—whom the apostolic see has sent, may your fraternity believe me to be presiding; nor should you think my presence separated from you, for I am present now in my vicars, and I am not absent even now from the preaching of the Catholic faith," etc. These legates, having exercised the authority of the supreme pontiff, spoke in the council as follows: "From the most blessed and apostolic Roman bishop, who is the head of all the churches, we have instructions that Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, should not sit in the council. But if he is sitting, he shall be expelled." Also, the legates give judgment against Dioscorus, being asked by the council as follows: "We ask your holiness, who hold the place of the most holy archbishop Leo, that you define the sentences against him and the punishments contained in the canons upon him himself. For the entire and universal synod will not disagree with your judgment." Those defining said: "Let the things which Dioscorus has said be made manifest to all." And after a few things, passing judgment, they deposed him. Concordant with whose sentence, the patriarch of Constantinople and the whole synod said: "I," he says, "feel and consent to those things which the apostolic throne feels in all things, that he be deposed," etc.
Pope Leo writes to the said patriarch thus: "Concerning Eutyches, we have not known by what justice he has been separated from communion. Wherefore, wishing to know about the cause, we wish to know the reason for your action, so that all matters may be suspended until they reach our notice. For we, who wish the judgments of the priests of the Lord to be just, cannot, without the matters being known, B pass judgment in prejudice of any party, before we hear with truth the things that have been done," etc.
The same Pope Leo writes thus to those who were in the council celebrated at Ephesus: "And so, the emperor has petitioned that confirmation be added by the apostolic see to the perfection of those things divinely ordained, as if it had been done by Blessed Peter."
Likewise, the princes who were present at the council in the place of the emperor speak thus concerning the Pope: "Since, therefore, the letter of our lord the holy Father Archbishop Leo, who adorns the apostolic chair, has been read, it is also expedient that the letter of blessed Cyril, which was written against Nestorius, be read."
Likewise, the entire perfect synod, devoutly receiving and approving the letter of the said Pope Leo concerning two natures in Christ, containing full faith, says in the case of each individual bishop, and through each one: "I acknowledge the letter of our archbishop Leo, patriarch of the apostolic see, to be consonant with the edition of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were at Nicaea, and the one hundred and fifty who were at Constantinople, and also of that which was celebrated at Ephesus under Blessed Cyril. And I consent to the same letter and I subscribe."
Others of them call him the bishop of all the churches. Some, the Pope; more, their father; others, the ecumenical C patriarch, that is, universal. Some indeed, their lord, adding more, "presiding over the see of the apostles," and similar things, which for the sake of brevity we do not place here. And yet, if they wish to be verified concerning each one, let them read the general councils, and especially the fourth council; let them look at the Chronicles of the Greeks, where they will find the truth of all these things without a doubt.
The patriarch of Constantinople writes these things to the same Pope Leo the pontiff: "To the most holy and most blessed Father," etc. Having narrated these things which were done in the council, he says: "It is fitting that all these things should reach the notice of your holiness, necessarily sending them there through such and such a bishop," etc. And below: "Which things we make manifest through them, we hope that through a prosperous response, such as befits you, they may return to us joyful, praising in all things the charity and providence of your beatitude, which you have always been accustomed to have with paternal solicitude toward the see of this royal city." And below: "For the see of Constantinople has your apostolic throne as a father. Whence, deign D to confirm those things which were sequentially done in the holy synod: as well as the definition of this Constantinopolitan see, of which it has been spoken."
And at the end of the entire said council, they write on behalf of all; thus narrating to the same one what was done in the council, and asking for the confirmation of these same things. They say therefore: "To the most blessed and most holy," etc. And after: "Our mouth has been filled with joy"
and our tongue with exultation." And below: "Which faith you, like a golden river led down to us by the command of the Creator, have guarded, having been appointed as the interpreter or expositor of the blessed Peter for all. Whence we, using you as the author of good for our benefit, demonstrate the lot of truth to the sons of the Church." Below: "For if, where two or three are gathered in his name, that is, in God's, he said he is in the midst, how great do you think his indwelling is towards some two hundred and twenty priests, and his familiarity, which they also A set before themselves in patience, and labor, and knowledge, in the confession of him, over whom you presided as the head of the members?" And below: "Explaining the causes of the deposition of Dioscorus, prelate of Alexandria, among many things they brought forward concerning the vineyard of the Lord and its keeper. Furthermore, they say: 'Against the keeper of the vineyard himself, who was appointed keeper by the Savior, he showed his madness, we mean your holiness, and he meditated to render incommunicable him who is solicitous to unite the body of the Church.'" And below: "Therefore, may you deign to establish those things which we define for the removal of all confusion, B but for the strength of ecclesiastical order, as proper and amicable, and suitable for decorum, most holy and most blessed Father. For those who occupy your place, the most holy bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and those who were sent with them as presbyters, Boniface and Basil, stoutly assisted our stated definitions, wishing absolutely that this good might be initiated by your providence," etc. And at the end of the same it speaks thus: "But that you may know that we have done this not out of favor or hatred of anyone, but as directed and guided by a divine nod, we make known to you all the things that have been done, so that by you those things which have been done may be established, strengthened, and granted." Likewise other similar things, etc.
But the emperors, not ignorant of the authority of Peter and his successors, write to the same Leo thus: "Victors Valentinian and Marcian, glorious triumphers, ever August, to the most holy Father and venerable archbishop Leo. We wish your Beatitude the swiftest well-being in the syllables of our serenity: inquiring that, by the care of Almighty God, through the intervention of your prayers, it may be granted to us, so that with his pious and peaceful magnificence, he may deign to grant all prosperous and desired things to our empire. We wonder greatly that after the Council of Chalcedon, and the letters of the venerable bishops who were sent to your friendship in God, by which they announced to you all things done therein, no such letters were sent by your holiness which could, in fact, be read in the most holy churches to the knowledge of all, for the souls of certain ones who still follow the perverse opinion of Eutyches C and have caused ambiguity: namely, whether your beatitude has confirmed those things which were issued in the holy synod. And because of these things, may your reverence deign to send letters, by which it may be made known to all churches and peoples that all things which were done in the holy synod have been confirmed by your beatitude. That, however, which your holiness said excellently, as befitted the bishop of the apostolic see—that preserving the ecclesiastical canons, you suffered nothing to be diminished from the ancient custom once issued in ordination and immovable, and persisting until today—" And below: "But when he has confirmed the Catholic and true orthodox faith, you shall know that the Council of Chalcedon followed, with all the bishops consenting. Because of this, let your venerability send your own special letters very quickly, by which you may make manifest that you confirm the same synod which was celebrated at Chalcedon: so that not even those who desire it can have any shameful suspicion about the judgment of your holiness's glory, that is, that your holiness judges that these things which were done are to be maintained." Now he says this because without the confirmation of the pope, or his legates, the business was considered invalid. But these things which we have said are gathered from the Fourth Council.
But lest it seem to some that, on account of the said definition issued in the mentioned council, something seems to have been diminished from the power of the pope, let us propose some things from the subsequent councils, which were celebrated much later. For in the Sixth Synod D, which was celebrated under Pope Agatho, in the time of Emperor Constantine, and his brothers Heraclius and Tiberius, in the city of Constantinople, against the Monothelites, the Fathers who had gathered, not ignorant of the authority of the prince of the apostles regarding his succession, in the eighth session of this book confess and write such things. Demetrius [Domitius] bishop of the city of Phisiadis [Prusias] speaks thus: "To the reports sent from the apostolic and principal see of older Rome, that is, from Agatho, to our God-crowned and most mild lord, the great Emperor Victor, as if issued by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of the holy and prince of the apostles Peter, and through the finger of the blessed Father, Pope Agatho, in writing, I assent, and so I believe, and so I feel, these two of our wills in Christ united in person, etc." Item, Theodore, bishop of Berissa in Armenia: "I, hearing the reports sent to our most benign Lord from our Father, the Roman Pope Agatho, and taking the intention of the authorities which are carried in them; I believe, just as our Father himself, the Pope of older Rome, believes." In this manner all the bishops rising said: "We all believe these things, and hold that faith, and follow it, etc." And with all things duly accomplished, giving thanks to God and the Pope, who directed them to
the three who are so honorable, we have sent this present letter of manifest certainty to you, and we show how unbearable is the weight of the plague, because of which we are prevented from reaching your holiness, as is required by the synodal custom of authentication or proclamation, being held by tyranny," etc.
For this reason, the whole council wrote: "To the most holy and most blessed," etc. And further down: "Whence we all attribute or commit to you, as to the principal see of the Church of the whole world, what has been done, standing upon the solid rock of faith, and we have gladly consented to the letters sent by your beatitude to the most pious emperor, in which the true confession is contained, which we recognize as having been enunciated as if by the highest summit of the apostles."
Item, John, Bishop of Constantinople, writes thus to Pope Constantine: "To the most holy," etc. And further down: "Although God has placed the very magnitude of creation, which is in visible things, as a token of his divinity and power: yet he demonstrated those things which are of his glory and wisdom especially in the most precious sensible creature, that is, in our own frame. From which the Prophet himself also exclaimed that the wisdom of God is to be admired. Therefore, the Creator of our nature, by diligent operation, placed a head over the entire body, in which, placing or attributing the perfection or integrity of the senses, he caused the entire motion and perfection of the remaining members to be brought about and preserved from it, so that if any of these should happen to be offended, or afflicted in some other way, it might not be without the provision of their care; but even in the furthest members, he shows natural compassion, either by the administration of the hands B or by the guidance of the eyes through vision, so that what is afflicted and in pain is healed; it is not injured, despised, or rejected in its cooperation or office by these as if it were useless. And thus we have to speak parabolically, O most holy one, concerning those things which are about your presence. For since we reckon you canonically to be the head of the priesthood which is in Christ, we congruously seek through you aid for the pain which occurs, and for the sadness. Send, therefore, consolation to the ecclesiastical body which is in us, on account of the pestilent and morbid plague of souls inflicted by tyrannical power. For by the very reason of the propriety of the head, do not despise us who are infirm, whether rashly or not voluntarily, nor, having forgotten the identity of nature, reject us, but rather sympathize with our wounds. For when one of the members suffers, according to the voice of Paul, all the members suffer with it. Now, therefore, grant us also recourse, as far as health is concerned, to a perfect restoration most justly. And especially, when the infirmity has received an occasion for the stabilization of its body not without cause, but has received its fall from an externally compelled and sudden D expenditure."
Afterward, he changes the person, because he speaks to the council which the Pope had gathered for the same cause for which he is here, namely on account of the Iconoclasts, that is, the impugners of images. Then he adds: "Because of which cause we necessarily, [we] three who are so honorable, have sent this present letter of manifest certainty to you, and we show how unbearable is the weight of the plague, because of which we are prevented from reaching your holiness, as is required by the synodal custom of authentication or proclamation, being held by tyranny," etc.
This decree of Constantine, which is to be placed in favor of the Church, which after receiving grace he established in the Roman city to Blessed Peter and the Popes his successors, and left to all the faithful in eternal memory in both Latin and Greek letters. For he writes thus:
Privilege of Constantine
"We judge it necessary with all our satraps and the whole senate, and the princes and the people who are under the power of the Roman Church, that just as Saint Peter is on earth in the person of God's faithful [servant], so [also] the bishops and successors of the prince of the apostles may have power on earth more than our own empire, for our glory. And this is granted by us and by our empire, and we will that he himself, the prince of the apostles, and his successors in his person, should be the first Fathers and defenders to God. And just as our imperial power is venerated and honored on earth, so let us cause the Roman Church to be venerated and honored, and even more than our empire. And we will that the eternal holy see, the cathedra of Blessed Peter, be glorified and exalted, giving to it power and the dignity of glory, and decreeing and sanctioning that it should have principal power, and that it should be the head of the four sees, namely the see of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. And likewise in all the Churches of the whole world, the bishop who is in the holy Roman Church is the priest of the world. And whatever is for sanctity, or for the utility of God, and for the correction and firmness of the faith of Christians, let it be judged by him. For it is just that there the holy light should have its head and beginning, for our Savior Jesus Christ, the holy Legislator, ordered Blessed Peter to hold the cathedra, and [it is] also where he sustained the passion of the cross, and drank the cup of blessed death, having become an imitator of his Master and Lord, and that there the nations should incline their heads because of the confession of the name of Christ, where their doctor, Blessed Paul the apostle, stretched out his neck for the sake of Christ and received the crown of martyrdom, and until the end of the world they should seek the doctor there, where the relics of the saints rest."
And further down: "For this reason, we deem it useful that our empire and the power of our empire be transferred to the eastern parts, and to the region of Byzantium, in a place
A where the head of the priesthood and the head of the Christian religion have been established by the King of heaven, it is unseemly that a worldly king have power there."
These things and many more of the same kind are contained in the said privilege of Constantine, which, for the honor and reverence of the sacrosanct Roman Church, he promulgated at that time in writing to the Greeks and Latins, as has been said. Yet he did not have this from himself; rather, being most Christian at that time, he deserved or sought to be present at the council of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers; and, filled with the same Spirit as they, he decreed that the see of the prince of the apostles, as he had learned from the Lord in the Gospel, was worthy of honor. For there, the aforementioned holy Fathers, distributing the prerogative of dignity to the Churches throughout the whole world, defined in their sentences that the Roman Church is the head of all Churches, as is necessarily proven in the aforementioned councils.
But also the remaining orthodox emperors, preferring the throne of Peter to all others, established such laws regarding it: "We will that every ecclesiastical region follow the customs of the Roman Church." And again: "We have decreed that the said see is worthy of all honor, because whatever pertains to the correction of the faith has always been received, corrected, and amended by that see."
If a diligent reader wishes to discuss all these things, he will find the three things which had been asked at the beginning of this part to be solved. Namely: at what time the Roman Church had that power, or from whom, and whether it was over all universally, or particularly over some. Repeating these things, we say: That the Church had authority from Christ, through Peter, to whom the care of all spiritual matters was specially and singularly entrusted; yet the execution of the power or authority the Church has from the first council held at Nicaea C, in which each see, according to more or less, had received honor from the apostles, and was less privileged and exalted; but it received its dignity and temporal power from faithful emperors, who, from the time of blessed Sylvester, promulgating public laws for it, gave it peace. Whence, and endowed with most generous gifts, it began to extend its right freely over all and everywhere from then on. Whence it is known to have deposed two patriarchs—Photius and a certain other—in the city of Constantinople, and to have excommunicated certain others. Indeed, the apostolic see was held in all reverence before the schism, D and legates sent by it to Constantinople were received with the highest honor and praise. Hence it is that the emperor himself, leaping down from his own horse, would lead the horse of the legates on foot as far as the palace which was called that of the Cardinals, imitating, of course, Constantius I, the prince of the Christians, who is known to have shown such reverence to blessed Sylvester, as is contained clearly in the aforementioned privilege. For it says: "And holding his bridle, on account of the fear and reverence of blessed Peter, we performed the office of a groom, that it might be made known to all through a public writing." Whence, such blindness in the modern Greeks, and such dullness of mind, that they say they are not bound to obedience to the Roman Church?
Let us also ask, and let them respond: Either he left Peter as the vicar of his see, or not. If so, we have our proposal, and all questioning ceases, and we are in peace. If not, then by the same reasoning, because Peter is not left, neither is Andrew, nor James, nor any other apostle. Whence, then, the multitude of sees in the Church, and the diversity of dignities, and such power of binding and loosing souls? Whence also to the Constantinopolitan prelate such or so great power, whence he says he is first after the pope, or above other patriarchs? But they say, that it is from the councils. But the councils prefer the see of Peter, as has been shown, to others. Whence blessed Stephen
the new martyr
(supple: to these who called him to a certain false council) responded: "How will your universal synod be called, in which it did not please the Roman prelate, without whom it is absolutely impossible for ecclesiastical matters to be canonized?" This testimony is found confirmed by his passion. And otherwise, a council could not invalidate him before his legates, nor could it even be gathered without the consent of the pope. Therefore, the Roman pontiff likewise has principal power from the councils; and hence, as before.But if they say: "We deem him excommunicated and a heretic because he added in the Creed: 'and the Son'; and therefore we will not obey him."
Again, it is asked of them: In which council or in which synod was such a pastor and Father of the Church convicted of falsehood and heresy, and condemned by common sentence? Since they have not been able to show this, because it was never done, we say that even if what is laid against him were true, still it is false, as we have demonstrated above. Before he is convicted principally by a council, the authority remains always with him; nor should he be avoided, but all are bound to obey him until, as we have said, the case is investigated in his presence.
A
The councils teach this, reason teaches and suggests it, and the canons compel it. Whence, in the fourth council, the Alexandrian patriarch Dioscorus and the archimandrite Eutyches, although they were to be deposed for their wicked heresy, nonetheless, before the sentence was carried out and the case heard, they manifestly held their seats in the council, and were always called venerable Fathers and most holy.
Since, therefore, the Greeks cannot excuse themselves in this either, whence is it that, receding from Mother Church for so long a time, they refuse with such an obstinate spirit to return to obedience? I think that the length of time has brought this interior blindness of man upon them. For three hundred and eighty years and more have passed, as it is believed, since this schism and scandal began to arise. But does time create a prejudice in such matters? Nay, it makes the crime of schism all the greater in the eyes of the eternal Judge, in that they abuse the times allowed for repentance; especially since once, twice, thrice, as is found in the Greek histories, by legates of the Roman Curia, and recently by brothers of our order, and by the Friars Minor in the time of Pope Gregory IX, they were sweetly called back from their error: so that at length, although late, returning to the bosom of Mother Church, with one mouth, however different the expressions of their voices, we might together bless our Redeemer Jesus Christ, who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.
It is clear, therefore, from what has been said, that the Roman pontiff is the head of all Churches, or of the universal Church, since it is one and not multiple, and the successor of Peter and the vicar of God on earth; and it behooves the faithful to obey him devotionally and humbly as they would the Lord Himself, in those things which are according to God. And those who contumaciously oppose him, and do not assert that the very see of the Church is the head, just as has now been decreed by the pontiffs of that same see, we say that they, struck by the sword of anathema, along with Dathan and Abiron, will incur the loss of eternal damnation.
Of the four causes of the schism
We believe there to be four causes or excuses for the schism. The first was the division of the empire. For although the emperors who reigned at Constantinople, after the departure of Constantine from the city of Rome, because they had bestowed everything upon the Church, as we said above, had no right in Italy, yet they reigned everywhere from time to time. But when a barbarian race had invaded Italy up to Rome, and the supreme pontiff had requested the aid of the Emperor Leo, who was at Constantinople, and he, acting negligently, refused B to provide aid to the Church, he was compelled to summon the aforementioned Pope Charles from the Gallic parts, and to constitute him emperor in Italy and defender of the Church. For that Leo, as it is read, was very voluptuous, and therefore very slack in the government of his empire. Whence in his time the Saracens occupied Syria, and the Turks Cappadocia, and thus the division of the Roman empire was made.
The second occasion for the division was that they were not invited to the council beyond the mountains when that word *Filioque* was added. But because we have identified the cause above, we remain silent here.
The third occasion was one which they themselves once assigned to us in familiar conversation, namely, the excessively arrogant demand of the pope's legates. For they said [note 27], reporting that when the legates of the supreme pontiff brought the chrism annually from the apostolic see itself to Constantinople, they would not depart unless eighty pounds of gold were paid to them by the clergy and the people of the city, besides other gifts and small presents. I am silent, they said, about the pomp and pride which they displayed.
The fourth, however, and the most important, as far as the clergy is concerned, was the deposition of the patriarch Photius, and his excommunication, and that of other prelates, and of certain abbots. But do these things suffice for the excuse of such a great schism, and the destruction of so many souls? By no means. But «he who wishes to depart from a friend seeks an excuse for the deed.» But what follows by authority? "At every time," says Solomon, "it will be C execrable" [*] — that is, to be avoided by all, despised and vile; which the present day indicates in the churches of the Greeks. For their clerics and monks are imprisoned, like other rustics, and popular exactions and tolls are made upon them, just as upon the laity, so that the truth of what is written by the prophet is fulfilled: "As the people, so the priest" [**]. For the priestly glory has been transferred from them, and their dignity and ecclesiastical liberty reduced to contempt. For he who commands institutes whatever he wishes to institute; and whom he wills to depose, he likewise deposes. And deservedly so. As those who despised being under the Roman Church and ecclesiastical persons, they now lie under lay princes even against their will. Let them recognize the distance of servitude and of the masters of the world, and let them be converted, and let them cry out to the Lord and to the supreme pontiff, and He shall deliver them.
These things, however, were written in the year of our Lord one thousand two hundred and fifty-two, in the city of Constantinople, by the Preaching Friars, for the edification of the Church and the profit of souls, to the praise and glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen [note 28].
[*] Prov. xxviii, 9. [**] Isa. xxiv, 2.
Certain matters added to the aforementioned. AGAINST THE GREEKS.
As we have testified in the preface of this little work, the Church of the Greeks, which once incited many by its beauty to the emulation of the faith and of morals, is now so obscured by the mist of error that it strikes horror into those who see its filth, so that it can no longer be called a Church of the faithful, but rather a congregation of heresiarchs. Although we have already demonstrated this through four stated articles, yet it is shown in those things which are set forth below. These things, plucked from the sayings of master Hugo Eterianus, we have deemed to be inserted into this work. For they speak of the Latins thus:
Against the Roman Pontiff.
The Roman Pontiff, and all the Christians of the Western regions—priests and laity, apart from the Calabrians—have for a long time wandered outside the Catholic Church, ignorant of the traditions of the evangelists and apostles, and alienated from the faith. For the Theotokos [Mother of God] is A little discordant with the rites of the gentiles, and impious toward God; but the Calabrians and other orthodox [Greeks], being of ancient and apostolic character, and informed by the customs of our Church [are otherwise]. All the rest are excommunicated, embracing as they do not only impious men who are strangers to the body of the Church, but even blaspheming the Holy Trinity [itself]. For in joining their own [errors] together and clinging to the alien ways of others, they are neither corrected by the divine Scriptures, which refute their errors, nor do they wish to behave in the manner of those who sent them.
They maintain that our holy Fathers and doctors thought in these ways, and that from thence they hold such a tradition. For in the holy Symbol, which the universal first synod that gathered at Nicaea consequently defined clearly thus: "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father," but they—while the Holy Gospel clearly shouts concerning the Holy Spirit: "who proceeds from the Father"—the aforementioned men added: "And from the Son," fallaciously, and to their own peril. Nevertheless, as I believe, they thought because of the narrowness of their own language that "the Spirit proceeds from the Father" [meant] the cause which is through the Son, and they interpreted our mission [of the Spirit] in a barbaric and improper way.
They offer unleavened bread for leavened, and they calumniate the holy Peter, and the holy Roman Pontiffs, as if they were the authors of such a tradition.
The leading priests together with the laity set out armed for war, and they fight in the ranks before other men. They fast on the Sabbaths; and if the feast of the Nativity or Epiphany falls on that day, they do not break their fast. Not recognizing the week dedicated to milk and cheese, they eat meat. On the second day [Thursday] they eat eggs, cheese, and milk, B from which they abstain for the whole of Lent, and they prohibit their children from these. They do not set forth in their churches the histories of the saints, except for the Passion of Christ. And they do not make the image itself a painting, but a sewn needlework in the likeness of graven images, and they make [them] of earth [fictile]. Entering the holy temples, they fall to the ground on their faces, and they whisper at first. Then, rising, they kiss the cross with one finger, and finishing this prayer they rise, and they refuse to kiss the holy images. They call the holy Mother of God, the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, only "holy Mary." Anyone of either sex, age, or order may approach the side of the altar of the churches. And in the solemnity of the masses, women can sit, if they wish, in the seat of the priests. Thus do they know how to distinguish between sacred and profane! They eat things strangled, things captured by beasts, carcasses, blood, bears, beavers (which they call castors), urchins, and things filthier than these, against the apostolic decree: as Luke reports in the history of the Apostles in these words: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from the sacrifices of idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication."
Priests and bishops wear priestly stoles—that is, the chasuble, not of wool, but weaving them from silks, preparing them for long use; since a stole of this kind, that is, a chasuble or planeta, represents the habit of Christ, or the habit which He had when He was stripped of His vestments, and was clothed in a scarlet cloak, which was woven from wool, which we use during the Lenten time. But on other days we use white [vestments], because Christ is called the sacrificed lamb. And therefore we prepare the chasuble for ourselves from the garments of sheep. In sign of the betrothal of the holy Church, they wear rings and gloves; on the right D hand they write, indeed: "The Lord's right hand," but on the left: "The Lamb of God." Their priests baptize only in water, and placing salt in the mouth of the one to be baptized, after they spit into the left hand and mix saliva with the right, they cleanse them. After they have reached the age of puberty, they anoint those guilty of sins with oil for the remission of sins, and they seem to be baptized twice. The same priests perform certain purifications constantly, and a sprinkling, by which they are bound to Jewish rites; [the way] some bless with five fingers, and sign the face with the thumb, as Monothelites. When, therefore, fingers should be arranged in the sign of the cross, so that by them two natures are signified, and three persons, just as Christ showed, when He was about to ascend into heaven, He lifted His hands and blessed them. From Septuagesima until Easter they do not sing Alleluia. They affirm they do not come. STEW.
A to worship the Lord in other languages, save for these three, namely Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. They bury the dead without their hands being arranged in the manner of a cross, but with them cast down near their lower parts. They seal everything with wax. Priests celebrate three or four times a day upon one altar, wherever it may happen. And the priest who celebrates three, or four times in a day, is fortunate if he can devoutly sing even one. They give their daughters in marriage to the daughter of a kinswoman for their son, or to a brother, or to a kinsman. If any monk is promoted to bishop, he eats meat without hesitation. And monks, when afflicted by some minor illness, eat flesh. But commonly they all use lard.
To be sure, they see and adore the venerable cross on other days in church; in holy Lent they veil it with linens, with which they also hide the Alleluia. And on the holy great Sabbath, bringing it out from the inner sanctuary, they exhibit it to the people as if it were rising from the sepulchre; and suddenly they sing with a great shout: Alleluia, and many times, and they scream for many hours, as if Christ had risen. When the masses are celebrated and the mysteries performed, many of the laypeople present, if it pleases them, talk and sit. They do not perform the participation in the holy communion in the same way as we Greeks do, but they say that the priest who celebrates the mass kisses the one wishing to communicate; the prelates do not perform the promotions of bishops and laypeople at all times, but only four times in the year, and on a designated day. For since there are four seasons of the year, namely spring, summer, autumn, winter, they observe the beginnings of these seasons, namely in the first month, those of March, and June, September, and December. In the first weeks they promote clerics, and deacons, presbyters, bishops: they are of bad opinion, and brutishly think that the coming of the Holy Spirit does not descend according to the virtue of the one promoting and the one promoted; but they think He comes on certain days, like the simple-minded. They do not allow priests to have a wife and to perform the mysteries of the sacraments. They permit two brothers to be carnally united with two sisters. Presbyters shave their beards in the manner of their own soldiers, contrary to apostolic institution. They look upon the holy Eucharist with extreme negligence: for they go to the sick and carry and distribute it without a light. And those who follow the camps put it in a pouch, and carry it in their clothes or in their hats. Their clerics and laity are not distinct; they approach the altar with covered head. They show no, or little, reverence for holy and terrible places. At the time of sounding the *sonum* on the night of the Lord's Nativity, Matins are sung; they permit bladders to be burst around the altar, so that they may have matter for laughter. In the days of the Passion, when they cause earthquakes, they strike seats, tables, and walls with small mallets and shatter jugs; and when they ought to be watching in prayers, some are turned into mental stupor, others into laughter, and other things are done in that same darkness, which I have judged unworthy even to mention. Yet from this I have excerpted the lapse of the laity, so that if ever it should come to their ears, they may return to themselves and have leisure for corrections.
The Evil Customs of the Greeks
The Greeks' reproach is intolerable, imitating Vulcan, who is said to be lame in one foot. He contemns and dishonors his own mother, namely, the see of Peter, the prince of the apostles, acting against her. Furthermore, God made the wisdom of such men foolish. For, full of the opinion of vanity, they seek fleeting fruits, like Tantalus. But in truth, the hand that ought to wipe away other filth ought to be clean. Wherefore, let them first anoint their own eyes with eye-salve, so that at least then they might wipe away their lippitude, and realize they are unable to discern the vices of others subtly. In the burrows of rashness, in the sting of presumption, in promoting bitterness in their boasting, as that which had not been heard before—namely that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone—they have built up moles' and ants' runs, poorly strengthened. Both sides divide the divine substance with Arius. For from their disputation, the Son is necessarily found to be lesser than the Father. They confuse the difference between being begotten and proceeding, which is nevertheless well distinguished in this: that the Son proceeds from one alone, but the Spirit from two. For since the Spirit is naturally the image of the Son, as the great Basil, the Theologian Gregory, and Damascene teach, it is necessary that He have His existence from Him, and proceed. Therefore, the book published under the authority of Manuel, which bears the title *On the Immortal Cause*, to which the Greeks cannot offer contradiction, namely that the Spirit proceeds equally from both, demonstrates this with irrefutable arguments. Therefore the Greeks have spoken falsely, and have wandered from the womb of their mother the Church, whom Christ in council, and the emperors, established as queen of all Churches. They have forgotten that saying of Solomon: *Keep, my son, your father's commandments, and forsake not the law of your mother. Bind them continually upon your heart, and fasten them about your throat*, and turn aside from follies that do not pertain to the matter. Having dried up, they have become like autumn trees, exposed, not only in matters, but even in most fruits of truth, which is evident from the tractate chapter and the rest that are subscribed.
Contrary to the instruction of Christ our Savior, they offer leavened bread; for they are ignorant with arrogance who was the leader of that tradition; with Christ blessing unleavened bread at the Supper, which the three evangelists
confirm by testimony. They say, and it would not be worth recounting except that they all lean upon it as a great champion, that leavened bread imparts life and animation. But every body made of dough, just as it does not produce life from itself, so it lacks life and animation. It certainly has a cause moving it from the outside, like tin, a house, a chest, leavened bread, and such things. Those things, however, which possess a cause of movement from within are natural, as are all living things. But the power of sanctification is not in the bread, but in the Word. Whence it does not seem to agree with the faith that this kind of act and assertion of theirs, by which they wish to show poverty, like the Armenians—who add no water to their offering—are found to be superfluous. For they add cold water to the Lord’s blood to finish the consecration, as if the blessing were powerless to complete it, and once again B they add warm water.
On Easter days, when the people are about to communicate, they prepare dry pieces; furthermore, they cause an abundance of the Lord's body to be prepared, and after the distribution, they bury the piles of leftovers because they do not last. They prepare bread soaked for those to be communicated, and they hand them morsels with a spoon, which it is nowhere read that Christ did. Their deacons who proceed to some promotion take wives, so as not to lose their honors, which is contrary to the tenth canon of the Nicene Council. Their priests in most places are men of blood, and they perform [sacrifices] with consecrated hands—a thing I have witnessed with my own eyes, following the Emperor through Cappadocia C and the regions of the Persians. Depriving priests of their due honor, they make them wait on them during banquets. On the slightest occasion, they afflict priests and clerics with rods and scourges like pagans. And so that they may have something to laugh at, they shatter hats on their heads with their fists, even though it is written: “If anyone has laid a hand on a cleric, or without cause or contriving a pretext, let him be anathema.”
In the lot of Simon Magus, the pontiffs of the Greeks must rightfully be placed, who bestow no churches without money. The apostolic word truly touches them: "Your money perish with you." They do not confer holy orders, which should be given gratis, unless their hands are weighted with money; they do not perform burials in cemeteries unless they receive money, and they defile everything for a price. Their patriarchs, archbishops, and archimandrites—according to what once occurred in the primitive Church of the heretics—are promoted by the laity to obtain honors and high positions. This is strictly forbidden in this age by the thirtieth canon of the Apostles, which is of this kind: D "If any bishop by means of worldly princes obtains a position of authority, let him be excommunicated, and separated, and all his associates."
But indeed, the third canon of the synod, which the Greeks call the seventh, announces that every election made by the princes of the world shall be void. One single Saturday, which we call holy, they have commended for the burial of the Lord Savior with fasting; as for the remaining Saturdays of the year, they claim that feastings, baths, and games, and whatever others [delights] are most celebrated among them. But they are exposed by a sufficiently amusing error, how they claim that it was established by the apostles under anathema, saying: "Cursed is he who fasts on a Saturday, except for one." For if because of the singular resurrection of the Lord all Sundays are venerated with worthy worship, and for the sake of His singular death, on Friday—is it not also for the sake of His singular burial that on every Saturday, unless a solemnity prohibits it (from which blessed Sylvester asserted that fasting and sadness must be removed), we should fast?
The nature of man, indeed, has been placed in ruin from the beginning, but the gluttony of the Greeks strives with it, such is the malice that exists from corruption. For not only twice, but as often as any opportunity offers, they put food into their mouths. Hence it is that on certain Fridays, all modesty laid aside, they eat meat; they fast for only seven days in the year: five for the whole of Lent, at the beginning of their week, on Holy Saturday, and on the vigil of the Lord's Epiphany. For throughout the entire great Lent they never abstain from supper, but once they have moved on, they eat once each day; nor do they celebrate their Lent according to their opinion, although "Lent" signifies a fast of forty days. But they exclude the greater week from the number of Lent and close Lent with six weeks. For there are so many from their first week until the Saturday that precedes the palms and branches of trees, in which it is universally chanted by them: "We complete the Lent that is useful to the soul." If from those six weeks, the six Lord’s days with as many Saturdays are subtracted, only thirty days will be found. It is superfluous to argue about the Lord’s days, on which fasting is prohibited for all Christians. But therefore, if the Greeks fast on Sundays (for they eat the same foods on Saturdays), they are guilty of the canon and are said to be anathema: so also he who fasts on Saturdays, except for one. Since, therefore, they bid farewell to fasting on Saturdays, and all those things concerning the feast, even if the greater week is counted among the others, it is most evidently clear that they do not have a Lent.
Monks staying outside the cloister overnight, like cattle, eat every hour in the streets.
into their bosoms, as if from a storehouse, they eat fruits or anything edible. They avoid taverns, and believe that consuming things in a warm wine bath is beneath them.
Among the monks there is no common purse, but forgetting Him who said: "Unless one renounces all that he possesses," etc., each one keeps his own property. The Greeks by no means revere that apostolic precept: "If a man nourishes his hair, it is a disgrace to him." A They all apply themselves with the greatest zeal to growing it. The clergy are primarily guilty of this failing, and even the monks, whom it becomes in no way, nourish their hair. For they do not perform the tonsure of their hair in the manner of a crown, as the rule prescribes, but they part and divide it on the forehead almost like women. They save their hair on all sides, so that it covers their bare necks and the cartilage of their ears. Women, having abandoned the natural style of hair fashion, are adorned with the very dense hair of the dead, against the admonition of the blessed Apostle Peter, saying: "Let there not be among women an external braiding of hair, or a wearing of gold, or a putting B on of garments." Women paint their faces with rouge and purple, and decorate themselves with various colors.
Men and women consider the sacrament of marriage to be something trivial. For as often as one displeases the other, they go before the urban magistrate, state their intentions, and with their instruments and belts cut, they take husbands and wives at will without contradiction, contrary to the commandment which says: "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." In their houses they build small chambers in which they place images of the saints, and they show them all the service C of lamps, candles, and incense; and the synodal churches, which their fathers built, they allow to fall into solitude and poverty, and they perform the solemnities of the Mass almost in their own bedrooms, although Blessed Sylvester forbade this. The Canon says: "No priest shall presume to celebrate, except in sacred places, in villages, and in the towns of the provinces." The wives of priests, entering the choir, take the offered loaves from the altar, and performing the service of a deacon, prepare all things that are necessary in all their offices of the Masses. The priest celebrates Mass around the third hour, having almost no listeners. And what I consider an abomination, when he is associated with his wife or a young son—whom he does not have as associates or companions—in greeting them he says: "Peace be with you." In Lent, on Saturdays and Sundays, they celebrate Mass and prepare the Lord's body. On other days, however, when a greater necessity presses upon them, they abandon the solemnities of the Masses entirely and use the Pre-sanctified. In Lent they commit to silence: "God is the Lord, and has shone upon us," which they chant at other times of the year. Their priests, in the Jewish manner, cultivate beards, which are stained when they drink the blood of the Lord.
D They do not abstain from things strangled; for they eat animals strangled in snares, as well as other birds, and they feast upon intestines filled with pig's blood, as a delicacy, contrary to the decrees of the Apostles. They feed pigs with human blood, and they practice the art of bloodletting. When they gather to bury the dead, known friends and relatives approach and give him a kiss, as if obtaining permission, in the manner of pagans, who used to address these words to the dead: "Go, when nature shall have called you; we shall follow you." They constantly make a mixture of blood which is prohibited by the holy Fathers. For cousins marry their female cousins. In baptizing, beyond the precept of the Savior and the custom of the apostles, they do two things that are very superstitious. One, indeed, is that the priest anoints the one to be baptized all over with oil, so that it reaches him from the tint of the water: the other, however, is that they order the water to be made warm to cleanse the infant: which it is not read that Christ or any of his disciples did; wherefore they make two baptisms, when it is written: "One Lord, one baptism, one faith."
The Greeks argue in vain against the Latins on account of the water which is blessed in the churches on Sundays to sanctify the people; since, if this be a fault, they themselves are guilty in many ways. For individuals anoint their foreheads with papers dipped in the oil of lamps burning before the images of the saints, and they sprinkle themselves with water touched by the relics of the saints; and on every Kalends they most diligently bless the water. To take some of this, people from the vicinity come and carry it to their homes, and they not only sprinkle themselves, but they partake of it more truly. The Apostles and the successors of the apostles abandoned even the company of their wives, lest they pollute their priesthood; but the Greek priests, having abandoned the footsteps of the saints, like animals contracted marriages, and do not perceive the things that are of God. And what is more abominable, rising from the bed of a woman, they profane the holy mysteries, which they in no way permit to those who are polluted and recently defiled with women. They think Christ is less powerful than they think him to be. For this can be proved by the fact that they never chant *Christe eleison*; they sing *Kyrie eleison* most frequently in their offices. The primacy of the priesthood among them seems to exist only among the monks. For only the monks exercise the power of binding and loosing, which was primarily entrusted to Peter and the successors of Peter. For this reason, a singular greed for money grips the priests established in the monastic habit, and many crimes flow from this, so that they vanish in their thoughts and are cruel in their reproofs. For that which is most diligently observed in the great palace of Constantine, they accuse the Latins of doing. Indeed, in the Church of the said palace,
A where they set the holy relics, the holy image of the Mother of God is placed behind the altar, which they call by a certain privilege of excellence the Mistress of the House; immediately from the beginning of the fast it is locked in a chamber until the Great Sabbath; the cloths of that door are covered, and likewise they keep the holy mantles, and the holy Koramid [/A] Note: The text reads 'Koramidi' in the Latin column, noting (39) that it is 'Locus corruptus' locations, during the time of Lent, covered with veils until that Sabbath; they compel the holy image of the Mother of God to "stand as godmother" to children, and by that means they summon the Mother of the Lord herself, so that she might become a co-mother, in this way: they attach a linen cloth to the image, so that the baptized child, when taken from the priest's hand, may be received by her as if she were the B co-mother. They profess in speech that this superstition is practiced by them. But who would dare to assert that an image can speak, or pledge faith for a child, or give testimony of a baptism, unless he despises God? Wishing to omit no species of superstition, and harboring hatred for their living brothers, they make the saints, through their images, their unwilling brothers. For he who does not love his brother whom he sees, how shall he love God, whom he does not behold and does not know? But since a brotherhood of this kind is feigned and simulated and unfortified, they hire a priest with money when mass is sung in the Church; prayers that will not be heard are poured forth for this detestable brotherhood. For a brotherhood of this sort is animal, not spiritual. They light at least two candles, and the feigned brother is anointed with oil, and embraces the holy image which he has dared to call brother; he who is convicted of being a murderer when he hates his living brothers. C They openly contradict Christ, and oppose His most holy body with words and works. For while He Himself gave His flesh to the disciples under the species of unleavened bread, they assert that unleavened breads cannot be converted into flesh through a blessing. For which reason they say the Latins are devoid of the sacrament of the Lord's body. But oh, Pelagian incredulity! If you do not believe that a Latin priest offers the unbloody host and consecrates the body of Christ, you are a heretic. For many are sanctified through that very immolation, through whose relics miracles are continually wrought. Again, if you do believe it, you are a heretic. For you abhor the fact that the Church of the Latins consecrates the Lord's body; and you would rather be numbered in the lot of the traitor Judas than participate in that most holy body. But a Christian ought to observe that, just as the Word of God changes different kinds of wine into blood, so [He] changes unleavened and fermented breads, not being so different, into flesh. If by chance a Latin priest celebrates on the Lord's Day—which is barely permitted in their Churches—a Greek will not celebrate there unless the altar is washed. Furthermore, a Latin wishing to contract marriage with a Greek woman is compelled by oath to desert his own communion, his own confession, his own baptism, the fast of the Sabbath, and Christ’s D eating of flesh. For everyone who in the royal city marries the wife of a Greek brother pledges by a written oath that he will not subsequently eat the Lord's flesh in unleavened bread, nor will he have his children baptized according to the rite, nor will he confess his sins to a Latin priest, nor will he fast on the Sabbath except for one alone, nor will he eat meat from the Sunday of Lent until Easter.
The priests of the Greeks labor in every way to show, more by deeds than by words, that the inviolate faith of the sacrosanct Roman Church is void. For they baptize any Latin whom they associate with themselves by faith, whether secretly or openly. Whence the said priests, with the mothers as intermediaries and without the fathers knowing, rebaptize the sons of Latins, who have already been baptized according to the rite of the Latins. Which is more detestable than all the abominations mentioned above. From this index I have expressed the honeyed milk found among the other customs of the Greeks: so that when they have purged their breasts with it, they may recognize themselves as guilty of thrice as many souls.
Concerning the General Councils
Consequently, after the aforesaid, one must inquire concerning the general and particular councils, namely where, when, and by whom, and for what causes they were celebrated: and also who those are that were condemned by the said councils.
It should be known that, although seven or eight councils are spoken of among the learned men of the Greeks in the book which is called the *Nomocanon*, we find, however, only five among them which are considered general, and no more; and they believe this to have happened because the authority of the Roman pontiff did not intervene in them; and the bishops were not universally summoned, or certainly because they did not issue canons containing the doctrine of the faith, but only those things which pertained to the decency and customs of the Church. But whether they be called general or particular, or by whatever name they are known, all things which were faithfully enacted in them are commonly accepted: and their authority, as much in matters of faith as in others, obtains equal firmness.
Of the first holy and universal Nicene synod; it defines the Son as consubstantial with the Father, true God and man, creator of all, not a creature.
The first holy and universal synod [was held] in the province of Bithynia, in the city of Nicaea, in the time of the prince Constantine the Great, whom the Greeks count in the Catalog of saints, under the most blessed Pope Sylvester, where Osius bishop of Corduba was present, and Victor of Italy, vicars of the Lord Pope, Metrophanes archbishop of Constantinople, and Alexander patriarch of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem. There were with these and other holy Fathers, to the number of three hundred and eighteen. They gathered, however, against the vain wisdom of Arius.
who was at that time a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria. This Arius indeed blasphemed our Lord Jesus, as true God and true man. For he said that He was a creature. Therefore, the impious man would neither confess Him to be consubstantial with God the Father, nor consider him so with other catholic men; since this was a confession common to all, preached to everyone, namely that every son is of the same nature and substance as the father; and he who counts the Son among creatures, of necessity also confesses the Father to be a creature. Whence, they anathematized him as an enemy of the truth, together with those who thought the same, and cast him out of the Church, namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eunomius, and Macedonius. For although these men differed in their own terminology, nevertheless, like Arius, they fell away from the truth. But the orthodox confirmed the faith, confirming and preaching the Son as consubstantial with the Father, and as the creator of the universe, and not a creature, but as true God and sovereign, which they declared [in the Creed], which those holy Fathers brought forth at that time by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Concerning the second synod, the first of Constantinople, which declares the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son.
The second holy and universal synod was held at Constantinople, in the time of the great Emperor Theodosius, under Pope Damasus. There were present Nectarius, archbishop of the same city, and Timothy, patriarch of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch (who ended his life in this very synod), Cyril of Jerusalem, Gelasius of Caesarea in Palestine, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory the Theologian, or Nazianzen, who at that time held the throne of Constantinople, who indeed, after a dissension arose, voluntarily resigned his honor at that same synod, withdrawing to the place which is called Nazianzus. There were also with these other holy Fathers to the number of one hundred and fifty. They gathered against the impious Macedonius, who had furtively and tyrannically seized the patriarchal see of the city, and blasphemed the Holy Spirit, saying that He was not God. He having been justly deposed, Nectarius was immediately ordained, of whom we made mention above. Therefore, they condemned Macedonius as an enemy of piety, and anathematized him there with his accomplices. They expanded in the Creed that the most holy Spirit is true God and sovereign of the universe: and that He is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and of the same divinity, just as it is contained in the Symbol of faith, which they preached more broadly and extensively by the grace of the same Holy Spirit.
Moreover, they pronounced a sentence of excommunication against Apollinaris of Laodicea, and Sabellius of Libya, and those who blaspheme and think similarly to them. These men said that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ was inanimate, that is, without a rational soul A and remaining in human understanding and the death of the body; but the aforementioned holy Fathers confirmed the flesh itself to be animate and intellectual, having a soul similar and rational to our souls.
In the holy synod, however, the said Emperor Theodosius went too far, doing certain things contrary to the institutions of the first and holy and august synod. For he forced the aforementioned one hundred and fifty Fathers, secretly and without the supreme pontiff and his vicar, to elevate the Constantinopolitan see with the name of patriarch, attributing to it what it did not have before. Which matter became the cesspool and cause of vehement discord and disturbance, and persists even to this day.
Concerning the third synod, the first of Ephesus: It confesses Mary as Theotokos.
The third holy and universal synod was held at Ephesus in the time of Theodosius the Younger, under the Roman Pope Celestine. Where were present Cyril, the great doctor, patriarch of Alexandria and champion of the Church, John of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Memnon of the Ephesians. The impious Nestorius presided at that time over the Constantinopolitan see. With these holy Fathers were also many others, to the number of two hundred. They gathered against this Nestorius, an anthropolater, that is, a worshiper of man: separating and dividing Christ. He said that He was a mere man, and not God incarnate. Teaching two sons in one Christ God, and two persons. Whence he did not even call the holy Virgin Mary, who bore this Christ Jesus, B *Theotokos*, that is, Mother of God, but *Christotokos*. For the sake of this thing, the said synod deposed him who persisted in said blasphemy, as Jewish, C and it demonstrated that she is properly and truly *Theotokos*, the most holy Virgin Mary, and preached that He who was incarnate of her without seed is our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and true God.
John, however, the patriarch of Antioch, saddened that Nestorius had been deposed without him, taking those bishops who had come with him, among whom was also Theodoret, deposed Cyril — which it is a crime to say — who also held the place of the supreme pontiff in that very Ephesian council, as if he had made the said synod against the canons of the Church. And so he made a schism between them. But later, by the care and solicitude of the same emperor, they were again united, consenting in one. Thus the impious Nestorius was sent into exile.
The second synod, therefore, which was held at Ephesus under the same Theodosius the Younger, is held as furtive and reprobate. And because it consented to hold the fatuities of Dioscorus and Eutyches, who thought perversely, and approved them, the aforementioned synod was deservedly rejected by the holy catholic and apostolic Church. D
A Concerning the Fourth Council of Chalcedon: it confesses true man and true Christ in two natures, without confusion and division.
The fourth holy and universal synod was celebrated in the city of Chalcedon, in the time of the Emperor Marcian, under the most holy Pope Leo, a great column of the Church. In it were Anatolius, Archbishop of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem; but from Alexandria was the proud Dioscorus, with whom were other holy Fathers to the number of 630.
Now they gathered against this same Dioscorus and Eutyches, archimandrite of the monastery known as the Studion, which is in the royal city itself. For they refused the incarnation of our Savior and God, Jesus Christ, making Him altogether phantastical, clothed in flesh. Whence they said that He existed in one nature, attributing to the divinity the passions He endured. Because of this, therefore, as they persisted in such an error, the holy synod excommunicated and anathematized [them] and all who consented to them.
They promulgated, therefore, a definition concerning these sacraments: that He Himself is perfect God and perfect man in two natures, without confusion and division. They also received the epistle of the most holy Leo, which he sent to Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, as a column of the orthodox faith, and it is so called to this day.
It is also necessary to know that those who are called Theodosians after a certain Theodosius, and Jacobites after a certain Jacob, and Severians after a certain Severus, think and understand similar things—namely, the errors of the aforementioned abominable and execrable heretics, Dioscorus and Eutyches—and just as they are execrated or to be execrated, they resist, along with other heretics, alienating themselves from the holy catholic Church.
B This holy synod first approved and confirmed the holy synod of Chalcedon, as well as its orthodox and salutary dogmas. And the same holy synod anathematized and excommunicated the heresies that had arisen from diverse causes, [including] Origen and all his impious writings, Evagrius, and Didymus, and those similar to them, and those who thought equally, and those despising the doctrines of the Gentiles [clinging or insisting upon them]. For they said that the bodies in which we now are would not rise again, speaking foolishly and without understanding, and that the sensible paradise was not made by God, and does not exist; and that Adam was not formed by God in the flesh; and that the punishment of the reprobate has an end; and that the demons will be reduced to the pristine state which they had, namely before they fell. C But not only this, they also gathered other infinite blasphemies and immersed themselves in the deep. Which, however, they did not preach in public or in manifestation, but held them in secret among some, and the aforementioned dogmas could not be perfectly estimated by the holy synod. Because when the said three heretics had been [active] much earlier than the aforementioned fifth council, they drew many to themselves in diverse parts of the world. And when they had begun to corrupt much of the populace with such impious dogmas, the fifth council was immediately celebrated by the will of God, where, reproving them and their blasphemies, it struck them and all who followed such things with the sword of anathema.
In the time of Marcian himself, it reached the ears of the blessed Leo—of whom mention has been made—that Anatolius, bishop of the Constantinopolitan see, was encroaching upon others’ sees and adding them to his own pontifical reach; and for that reason the said Pope wrote to Anatolius, that he should cease from such rapacity. But since all his admonition profited nothing, it went for naught. From which time the prelates of said see did not cease to foster discord and to contend against the Roman Church over the deposit. Whence also in the fourth council, without the consent of the Pope and his legates, as has been said elsewhere in the treatise *On the Power of the Pope*, they issued a canon for themselves, concerning which we will discuss a few things at the end of this work.
Concerning the Fifth Synod, the Second of Constantinople.
The fifth holy and universal synod was celebrated at Constantinople, in the times of the Emperor Justinian, under Pope Vigilius of Rome. Where there were present Eutyches, D Archbishop of Constantinople, Apollinarius, Patriarch of Alexandria, Domnus of Antioch, and Eutyches of Jerusalem with others, one hundred and seventy.
Furthermore, it excommunicated and cast out of the Church Theodore of Mopsuestia, the disciple of the impious Nestorius, with his execrated dogmas. With whom it eliminated Antiochus and Peter Zoas, and also Theodoret, who wrote much impiously and wickedly against the champion of piety and truth, the blessed Cyril, and also lied against the first holy synod of Ephesus and against the documents of our faith, giving himself over to the infidel and profane Nestorius; they cast him out of the Church as a heretic until he should revoke everything. All of which they completely extirpated as pestilential, along with that epistle which is called [the letter of] Ibas, which was sent into Persia to Maris; not only were such things adverse to right doctrines, but they participated in every impiety. These things, therefore, being duly finished, they confirmed and strengthened, as has been said, the dogmas of the Church.
Concerning the Sixth Synod, the Third of Constantinople. It condemns one will and operation in Christ.
The sixth holy and universal synod was also held at Constantinople, in the times of Constantine Pogonatus, son of Justinian, under Pope Agatho of Rome. In which was Gregory, Patriarch of Constantinople, Theophanes of Antioch, and Peter the monk, vicar of Alexandria (for the see was vacant), with other 170.
A They were indeed assembled against certain persons who had concocted a new heresy in the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I speak against Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius and Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, bishops of Constantinople, and also against those who, within that very holy synod, newly innovated their heresy—that is, against the heretics: I speak against Macarius, the bishop of Antioch, who was deposed because he stood against those things which were defined by the synod itself in a catholic manner, and against his disciple, Stephen. These aforementioned heretics dared rashly to say that there is one will and one operation in Christ after the incarnation; and they wished to dissolve the conjunction which belongs to the orthodox faith. For this reason, the holy, universal sixth synod struck the aforementioned heretics with anathema as impugners of God, and those who were like them in wisdom, and all who ever were or ever shall be of such mind, not being penitent; and together with them, they similarly excommunicated Polychronius, an old man with a childish mind, who denied that the dead would rise again.
Therefore, the holy synod strengthened the catholic faith concerning the two natural wills and operations after the union of the Word to human nature—not in a division of persons, God forbid!—but because the natures are united, which are in Christ, each had its own proper will and operation. For others, who remove the properties of such a nature, or destroy the operations and wills, or confuse the natures whose properties they are, [are in error]. However, this synod issued no canon, as even the Greeks themselves admit with wonder.
The second sixth synod condemned, and its canons.
The son of this Constantine, Justinian, Rhinotmetus by name, after the death of his father, when he had taken up the reins of the empire, assembled a synod in the Trullo of his palace, to the fraud and injury of the apostolic see, and similarly called it the sixth synod—which is to be called not holy, but execrable: because, while keeping secret from the Roman pontiff, they issued one hundred and two canons for the condemnation of the holy Church of the Latins of God. These canons, however, are opposed to the holy Church of Rome of God, especially the third, the tenth, the thirtieth, the forty-fifth, and the fifty-second canons, which are noted below in the objections of the Greeks.
Concerning the seventh synod, the second of Nicaea, against the Iconoclasts.
The seventh synod was also at Nicaea, where the first of all was celebrated, in the time of Pope Adrian of Rome. For Constantine, with his mother Helena, while departing from the pious decrees of his predecessors, followed the obstinacy of Justinian. Nevertheless, for the memory of the sacred images... B seeking to recall his people, he ordered a synod to be gathered, which he seemed to call the seventh and universal, though it had no favor from the holy Roman Church and the apostolic see, according to what some claim. Yet in the books of the Greeks, the contrary is written in this manner.
C The seventh holy and universal synod came together at Nicaea, where the first of all was celebrated, in the time of the Emperor Constantine; who was the son of the Empress Irene, under Pope Adrian of Rome, in which was Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople; of Alexandria, Theodorus of Antioch, and Elias of Jerusalem, with whom were other holy Fathers, to the number of sixty-six. But the vicars of the said Pope were Peter, a priest, cardinal, and monk, and Peter, the abbot of the monastery of Saint Sabina, which is in the city of Rome itself.
All these were gathered against the iconoclasts, that is, against the impugners of images, of the figures of Christ, the cross, the blessed Virgin Mary, and other saints, which they asserted ought in no way to be worshipped: ignorant, those unhappy heretics, that the honor which is bestowed upon such things is not exhibited for their own sake, but for the sake of the One whom the image represents. And that because of such pictures, the ancient and vigorous deeds of the saints are imprinted upon the memory of those simple folk who are not sufficient to grasp them through the Scriptures, and are transmitted in successive order to posterity, so that their glorious triumphs may not be blotted out by oblivion, but may be venerated with all piety, and their deeds imitated by the example of good men. Therefore, refuting with testimonies of the holy Scriptures the barbarous and erroneous opinion of the many, they eliminated it from the Church, condemning with perpetual anathema those who henceforth might rashly attempt anything against this. Such is the tenor of the seventh council, which appears to conflict much with what was said above.
But this contrariety is more quickly solved if the time and order of the events are viewed. In truth, the aforementioned monks were nuncios of the apostolic see, not to celebrate a synod, but to admonish the said Emperor more diligently on the part of the Pope with his letters, so that, having abandoned the error of the sacred images, with which all Greece was then infected, the pictures of the churches might be restored to their ancient and pristine honor, which he indeed did. Therefore, having taken the opportunity, the said Emperor, from the letters of the Pope, gathered the seventh council in the royal city itself in the first instance, but since a dissension arose and they could not agree, those who had gathered departed from one another. D Yet they were held back in the same city for a whole year, and so afterward, by the command of the said Emperor, they gathered. This council was presided over by the said nuncios of the Pope, and by Tarasius the Patriarch, whom they call holy, and the other prelates named above. Peace having been restored in the Churches after this manner, Tarasius the Patriarch of Constantinople reported, as was the custom,
A the entire process to the Supreme Pontiff, so that such a council might be confirmed by his authority. For seven councils are collected in a book, which is called the Nomocanon. However, I have not found what the Pope replied.
Of Particular Synods
It must also be said that, besides those seven universal synods, there was one other, universal indeed, but since it does not treat of the articles of faith, it is not placed in the number of general synods by the ancient Greeks, but among others which are termed local. The modern Greeks, however, being schismatics, have excluded it from every count, and have kept silent about its very name, because their patriarch Photius, a heresiarch, had been recently deposed from that very patriarchal dignity which he had unjustly usurped for himself. And the blessed Ignatius, who had been unjustly expelled from that see through the efforts of the said Photius, was honorably restored. The Chronicle bearing the name of the Paphlagonian testifies to this, in which are recounted nearly unheard-of details concerning the execrable misdeeds of Photius, to his own condemnation. Eighty-two years flowed from the seventh universal synod up to this eighth one; and three hundred and seven from the same sixth one.
Particular or local synods in the regions of the East were as follows:
The first was held in Antioch of Pisidia, in the time of the Emperor Aurelian, against Paul of Samosata, who first dared to blaspheme our Lord Christ, the Son of God, saying that he was a pure man; but that he had been distinguished and exalted by grace. Hearing this, the prelates C of the Churches gathered from every side to the said city, countering a new and unprecedented error. This synod was presided over at that time by Hymenaeus, Bishop of Jerusalem, and the blessed Gregory of Neocaesarea in Cappadocia, who is surnamed Thaumaturgus, that is, the wonder-worker, and others, who by common consensus deposed Paul and cast him out of the Church. Whether he issued canons, however, is not held.
Immediately after this was the second, in the city which is called Ancyra, in the province of Galatia, over which presided Vitalis of Antioch, leader of the Syrians, and Agricola of Caesarea in Cappadocia. The aforementioned Fathers gathered, and many with them in the said place, because of certain ones who, during the time of persecution in the Church, had denied Christ because of excessive tortures: wishing to know whether such men should be received back into the faith henceforth, and how they should be reconciled. Wherefore, an investigation having been made, they defined many things regarding this, and created twenty-five canons.
There was also a third synod following after that one, in Neocaesarea of Pontus, which likewise issued fourteen canons.
This was followed by the first of the general [synods] in the city of Nicaea, against Arius, as expressed above, whose canons are twenty.
Another synod was held subsequently in Antioch of Syria, during the time of the prince Constantius (?Constantine), son of Constantine the Great, which promulgated twenty ecclesiastical canons. After this there was also another synod in the city which is called Gangra, in the region of the Paphlagonians. It issued and ordained twenty-five canons for the integrity of the clergy.
Another was in the city which is called Sardis, on account of the Emperor Constantius, son of the great Constantine, who declined into the Arian heresy. His brother Constans, who reigned in the West, at the admonition of the Pope, sent threatening letters, to wit, that he would make war against him unless he desisted from the said error. Finally, by the will of both, it came to pass that a synod was gathered in the parts of the East, and they would stand by the counsel and sentence of the Fathers concerning whatever they defined regarding this. And when it was done, the aforementioned Sardican synod defined that the Nicene Creed was to be strictly held, adding twenty-one canons pertaining to the doctrine of the faith.
Similarly, in the metropolis of Laodicea, there was another synod, which promulgated 59 canons.
After this, however, the second and universal synod was gathered, which is called the Constantinopolitan, against Macedonius, the bishop of the aforementioned city, as we mentioned above, who blasphemed impiously against the Holy Spirit. But it issued only five canons.
This was followed by the third general [synod], held in the city of Ephesus against the impious Nestorius, as is had above. Its canons were six.
After this, however, there was a third in the city of Constantinople against Eutyches, but it was particular: yet it issued no canons, nor are any held.
Then followed that which was held in the city of Chalcedon by the six hundred and thirty holy Fathers. Its canons are twenty-five.
There was also another Constantinopolitan synod, though a particular one, against Severus. For the Emperor Anastasius, declining into the heresy of Eutyches, ejected many great prelates from their places, stirring up throughout his entire empire a persecution of the entire Church of Christ. Thus, since he had bestowed favor upon the heretic Severus, so that he might become patriarch of the Church of Antioch without the valid election of Flavian, whom the canons proclaimed a martyr; the aforementioned Severus filled the Church of Christ with scandals, and persecutions, and homicides: so that Anastasius himself, his protector and patron, threatened him by letters that, unless he desisted from such madness, he would depose him from the honor of the patriarchate. Anastasius having died, Justin, a man of the Catholic faith, took up the scepter of the empire. Fearing this and seeing it, Severus voluntarily ceded the honor, secretly taking flight, and setting off to Alexandria to his accomplices. And when he had induced many there into the aforementioned error, the Emperor Justinian, who succeeded the aforementioned Justin,
A at the request of the orthodox bishops of that land, petitioned to gather a synod in the city of Constantinople. At that same time, Pope Agapetus, because of the persecution which had occupied all of Italy, came to Constantinople with many clergy and bishops. By his authority, the said synod condemned the impious Severus and all those like him. For the blessed Pope Agapetus deposed and condemned from his office Anthemius, the bishop of the city, an accomplice of Severus, who—against the laws of the canons—had seized the see of the said city.
After that was the fifth general synod, which was held by Emperor Justinian against Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia and the remaining heretics, of which we have made mention above: it had twenty-two canons.
After that was the sixth and seventh, which are described last among the five; and it was named above. That most famous council was celebrated. It issued very many canons, namely one hundred and thirty-three.
But also the patriarch Photius, who was a heresiarch, held two successive councils in the city of Constantinople. The first in the temple of the Holy Apostles; the other, to which—as they say—Pope John gave favor, in the church of Holy Sophia.
These, therefore, are the councils which the Church of the Greeks receives and retains; concerning whose canons it boasts against the Roman Church, adding to these the canons of the apostles, which it attests to having received from the blessed Clement; and assigning their number in its books, it posits them as being eighty-five.
Furthermore, a furtive synod, which was held in the Trullo of the palace, made canons at the whim of the emperors, as was said above, one hundred and two.
But also the synod of Photius, to which Pope John lent favor, as they themselves wish it, made seventeen canons. The last of which seems to do much for the Latins.
There are, therefore, in total all the named canons, counted with the canons of the apostles, along with these, and those which were issued in the furtive synod of Trullo, three hundred and twenty-one. They have, moreover, certain epistles of their holy men, Basil, Cyril, Athanasius, and others, in which many more canons are contained, which they receive alongside other authentic ones, and imitate with equal veneration.
Supported, therefore, by the authority of these, the Greeks emit many barkings against the Roman Church, for the reason that there are many things in them that seem at first glance to act against the Latins and for the Greeks. Considering their tenor with diligent investigation, we shall discuss them from Greek into Latin for the exercise of those reading, intermingling [such observations] with this work.
B Oppositions of the Greeks.
Let there be, therefore, one canon of the apostles: "A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon must not cast out his wife under the guise of piety or chastity. But if he does cast her out, let him be excommunicated. If he persists, let him be deposed." "But you," they say, "compel those approaching holy orders to swear a vow of chastity. Therefore, you compel them to dismiss their wives if they wish to attain such a rank. Therefore, etc."
Item, the twenty-seventh canon says: "We command that a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who strikes the faithful who sin, or the unfaithful who act unjustly, and through this wishes to be feared, be deposed." "But the Lord did not teach you this at all; but when he was reviled, he did not revile in return. But you Latins manifestly discipline those whom you absolve, and sometimes even to the shedding of blood. Therefore, according to the sanctions of the Fathers, you are to be deposed."
Item, the sixty-third says: "That if a bishop, or priest, or deacon, or anyone from the catalogue of the clergy eats meat in the blood of its soul, or that which was caught by a beast, or carrion, let him be deposed. For the law prohibits this. But if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated." "But it is clear," they say, "that the Latins eat such things indifferently. Therefore, etc."
Item, the sixty-fourth commands: "Nor should anyone fast on the Sabbath day, unless it be the vigil of Easter. If any cleric is found fasting on the Lord's day or the Sabbath, except for one only, let him be deposed. If he is a layman, let him be excommunicated." "But the Latins fast on almost every Sabbath day. Therefore, etc."
Item, the eighty-first cries out thus: "A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who is free from military service, and wishes to hold both, namely worldly authority and a priestly diocese, let him be deposed." "For what is Caesar's, to Caesar, and what is God's, to God. But the prelates of the Latins, and even the Pope himself, assume for themselves the dignities of such things, and some are called dukes, some counts, some even marquises. Therefore, etc."
Item, the third canon of the council held in Neocaesarea enjoins penance for digamists. And a much greater one for those who fell into trigamy and beyond, and the blessed Basil indicates such a marriage to be fornication. For the council says: "Concerning those who have fallen into multiple marriages. Indeed, the time of penance is manifest, which has been defined, but their conduct and faith abbreviates the time."
Item, the seventh canon says: "A presbyter should not eat at the nuptials of a digamist: for since the digamist asks for pardon, what presbyter will that be, to whom the digamist would seek to confess because of the feasting?"
Item, in the canons of the blessed Basil on the same matter, it is held thus concerning trigamists, and those coupled in multiple marriages, "We define the same canon as that regarding
bigamists proportionally; for the year is placed upon the bigamists; others have said two years. Some punish trigamists and those beyond, with three and four years; some furthermore excommunicate them."
Item, in the same aforementioned canon: "Regarding marriages celebrated multiple times, the Fathers have remained silent, as if it were an incentive, which is also altogether alien to the human race: but to us it is evident that it is more than the sin of fornication." But the Latins celebrate such marriages without contradiction. Therefore, they act against the institutes of the canons and the holy Fathers. But those who do such things are to be excommunicated. Therefore, etc.
Item, the fifty-second canon of the seventh council, which was held in Trullo, prohibits the celebration of the Mass in Lent, except on Saturdays and Sundays, saying: "On all days of the fast of the holy Lent, except for Saturday and Sunday, and the day of the Annunciation, let the holy Mass of the Presanctified take place"; but the Latins celebrate every day in Lent, and everywhere, even twice in a day. Therefore, they act against the institutes. Therefore, they are excommunicated and anathematized.
Response of the Latins to the authorities of the canons.
The Church of the Greeks, arming and raising itself against the Latins with these authorities, as has been said, does not cease to insult them, bestowing the madness of prevarication B and anathema. And although it is not within our capacity or talent to respond to each point as is fitting, yet some things can make the reader, who is ignorant of the law, more cautious, just as we can, in a more compendious manner on the part of the Latins, by the grace of God, refute those things said above.
Therefore, responding first, we say in a general manner of speaking: that every writing which a Greek brings forward for himself against a Latin, besides the text of the Bible, is and ought to be suspect to any wise man, because from the beginning of the nascent Church, the perverse dogma of the heretics in the aforementioned nation so exercised itself, that their study and intention was always to corrupt, destroy, and tear apart the true sayings of the saints by removing them or inserting false ones. The councils prove this, and one in particular, where, on the part of the Monothelites, with corrupted books brought forward, they imputed to blessed Pope Vigilius that he had anathematized certain ones who did not confess two natures, and one will and operation in Christ. Indeed, it was and is so familiar C and proper to the Greeks to corrupt the holy Scriptures; which, to curb madness of this kind, the holy Fathers prohibited under the attestation of anathema from being done in their own, using the words of the Apocalypse 38 with such an addition: "Whoever shall add to these, or diminish: if he is a cleric, let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated," etc., as we made mention above. And so that every path might be closed off to the same heretics, they ordained furthermore, as is commonly said, that the books, especially those of the holy councils, should be written on silk paper, for the very reason that it does not sustain the erasure of this parchment (f. as parchment).
But against the canons of the apostles and others that have been set before us, the answer will be manifold, and the adversaries can be refuted in various ways. For it is certain, as they themselves say, that the canons which are inscribed to the apostles were translated from Latin into Greek by the blessed Pope Clement. Since, therefore, every water flowing in the fountain and origin is found to be more natural and truer than in the rivulets which proceed from it,
it should be assumed and believed that in the Latin Church, from which as from a fountain the rivulets have proceeded, said canons are truer and purer than in the Church of the Greeks: especially since they have passed through the mouths of many heretics and schismatics for three hundred and eighty years and more, who have been accustomed to corrupt many other A scriptures. But since in the Roman Church many of them, and especially those which are presently objected against the Latins, are not found at all, it follows that they were either added by them—since it is very certain that they were taken from Latin into Greek—or, if it is true that they were forged by heretics and schismatics and inserted among other true canons, they are deservedly and without any question to be rejected. If, however, the Greek Church has received and kept such a document from someone—we know not whom—we say that its truth is unknown in Greek authority, and they must be reckoned among the apocryphal and doubtful; but the Church B knows nothing of apocrypha, where mostly by their silence they are convicted of being entirely opposed to the truth. What, then? We, indeed, choosing the first part of this argument, say with the expositor of the canons, who is greatest in deed and name among the Greeks, that Photius, or Photinus the patriarch, the author of the schism, who fixed many things from his own heart against the Latins, inserted doubtful canons and many others among the canons of the apostles and other holy Fathers, and in many places willingly condemned the truth.
Secondly, we say to the same point that the blessed apostles and holy Fathers also defined and ordained very many things in the Church for various causes and events, of places, surely, and of times, and even of persons, with which causes having without doubt been removed from the midst, their effects likewise should and ought reasonably and without cause to be removed. Hence it is that they command sometimes rigidly, sometimes leniently. Sometimes even in those things which are contrary to their own preachings they are found to have granted dispensation. The deeds of the apostles themselves prove this, where by unanimous consent they imposed a few—but nonetheless grave—things upon the gentiles, namely, to abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood C and from things strangled, and from fornication; which things Paul, the doctor of the gentiles, who was full of the same Spirit, as will be said below, later healthfully revoked. The same Apostle also, for a time and for a useful reason, circumcised Timothy, and later said to the Galatians: *If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.* Hence it is that Cephas kept certain legal rites before the Jews, even though he appeared reprehensible, on account of the weak. And Paul likewise shaved his head in Cenchreae while the Gospel was already shining forth, and as one to be purified according to the Law, he went up to Jerusalem to treat with those who had made a vow into the temple of the Lord. Hence it is also that our Savior, and D the Lord of laws, for the diversity of times seemed to command the apostles, when He sent them to preach at one time with a single tunic, and without sandals, and without a staff, and at another time with two, and shod.
Also in the definitions of the Fathers, as we have said, many things are found which prove this very same thing, that is, that some things were established for a time and for the occasion. For they say in some of their definitions, as Greek copies prove, in such a way: If any cleric does not eat meat and greens on the Lord's Day, let him be deposed; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated. And again: If anyone is found fasting on the Lord's Day or the Sabbath, except for one, let him be anathema. Many such things and things similar to these they established. Which, as we have often said, was done so that they might root out the errors which were in the Church from such statutes, not that they might persuade men of this as a perpetual law. For to whom is it doubtful that many of the faithful abstain from meats at all times? And yet they do not sin; and that many others, both on feast days and on other days, for the health of the body, and some for the health of the soul? And yet in such a work they in no way sin, because the intention imposes the end upon the work, not the work upon the intention, according to what the same holy Fathers have openly explained in most of their treatises. But lest we seem to have escaped the hands of our adversaries by answering so generally, let us return to particulars and see whether they miserably condemn us or the Greeks who object these things.
A certain canon, which they call of the apostles, as was shown above, says in this way: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon [shall cast off] his own wife, etc. We say that in the western Church of God we have never seen such a thing, nor do we permit that to be done which the Greeks object against us; namely, that any man lawfully joined in matrimony should dismiss his wife under the pretext of any religion or honesty, against her crying out or resisting. But rather we compel such men through ecclesiastical censure, if they have entered any religion, to dismiss it and be joined to their lawful spouse. But if they are free, and wish to flee to the sacred order spontaneously and voluntarily, since an ancient custom in the western Church has prevailed, because of religion and the reverence of the faith and the sacrament, that the ministers of the immaculate altar should serve not shadows and carnal sacrifices, but truth and spirit, they are truly required to take a vow of chastity, just as those who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven by entering religion profess a vow of obedience, chastity, and poverty; and certain other things according to the institutes of the rule. We do not, therefore, force clerics to descend to a lot of continence, but we preach it to them religiously and piously.
A If, however, they desire to ascend to such an order and degree, it is fitting that they inviolably observe the laws of their order. For it is congruous and consonant with reason that if the legal priest, about to enter the tabernacle or temple to sacrifice a victim or incense to the Lord at the time of his service, used to moderate his flesh with the rein of continence, then the evangelical priest—who must offer daily the immaculate host, that is to say, the true Lamb, not a shadowy one—should be clothed daily and continuously in the garment of chastity and purity, if he desires to offer an acceptable sacrifice to almighty God. Therefore, that prohibition does not touch us, but rather the Church of the Greeks, which fell into this curse from the beginning and persists in it miserably even today. For it is that same Church which, taking lay and common men—yet married ones—and elevating them to the episcopacy, or vice versa, compels them, despite the contradictions of their wives, to emit a vow of chastity, or to enter some monastery while their very spouses profess continence. This needs no proof, for there are almost as many witnesses as there are people who are not ignorant of that nation's customs. Is not the head of Goliath cut off with his own sword in this case? Does not their sword, brandished against the Latins, enter into their own hearts, and is not their bow, B indecorously stretched, shown to be broken in their own hands?
But as for the canon of the apostles, which says: “If any bishop,” etc., why is it not observed by them? Why do they object their own damnation and turpitude to us, who are innocent, with such an obstinate spirit? Since they cannot answer, let us pass to the twenty-seventh canon, which says: “A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon beating the faithful,” etc.
I answer: In any manifest sin, at least three things are found: namely, interior lust, exterior act, and the evidence of lust. By the interior, God is offended. The soul, made in the image of God, is deformed, and God—who forbade you—is despised by the creature. By the exterior act, a man corrupts himself and another. By the evidence or enormity, which is a loud cry, the whole Church is offended. It is necessary, therefore, if one wishes to repent rightly, that he apply deep remedies to these three maladies, namely, the sorrow of contrition against the lust of the mind, the labor of satisfaction through the execution of the work—privately, however, for private sins, and publicly for manifest ones.
Likewise, some sins are committed out of ignorance, some out of weakness, and some out of intent and malice. When, therefore, someone from the number of the faithful, not privately but publicly—not ignorantly, but studiously and proudly—has sinned and is separated from the Church, both by the merit of the crime and the sentence of the prelate, it is just that if he wishes to be reconciled to the Church, from whose integrity he was cut off by sinning, he should offer a condign and congruous satisfaction for the offense at the discretion C of the priest. Discerning priests of the Church, whose task it is to distinguish between the leprosy of the faithful and what is not leprosy, have judged that he who is separated from the unity of the faithful by contumacy, and who saddens his mother—that is, the Church—and indeed God himself by despising her, should prostrate himself before him, seek pardon, and in sign of subjection and humility offer his body to be struck and beaten, imitating him who says: “I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that pluck them” (Isa. L, 6). And again: “The discipline of our peace was upon him” (Isa. LIII, 5), etc. And that the penitent may show from this that the Church of God is the mother and mistress of life and of the morals of children, in whose hearts, according to the voices of Wisdom, “folly is bound, and the rod of discipline shall drive it away” (Prov. XXII, 15).
Let it even be granted that it is true that this canon belongs to the holy apostles; yet it does not touch the Latins, because it is not said there: "That whatsoever bishop wishes, etc., for any cause whatsoever," but it is said: "A bishop, etc., beating the faithful, and wishing to be feared on account of this," etc. For the Roman Church does not act thus toward its own children, as if exercising tyrannical power or moved by hatred, but for those causes which we have mentioned, and others which we judge should be passed over for the sake of brevity.
But the Greek Church, which carries the beam in its eye, which it does not see, but rather the small speck in its brother's eye (Matt. VII, 3)—this very thing that it objects to us it practices more studiously, I do not say among its laity, upon whom it does not presume to lay hands, but among its own priests and clerics, whom they have beaten with fists like wretched rustics, having nevertheless first removed the *pallium*, that is, the clerical garment, for the hour, as we have seen with our own eyes in the city of Nicaea.
Now, therefore, if this is so—or rather, because it is so—the Lord has made the wisdom of the Greeks foolish. Leaving this canon, therefore, as useless, let us turn our discourse to the sixty-third, which speaks of blood and things strangled.
And even if the general response already suggested is sufficient, let us nonetheless answer more broadly. We confess, indeed, that it was a true decree by the apostles in their Acts that those who were converted from the Gentiles should abstain (Acts XV, 29). This was indeed expedient for that time and the state of the weak, inasmuch as the synagogue of the converted Jews, with honor and respect, as the blessed Augustine says, had to be led to its burial. But in the process of time, the preaching of the Gospel being strengthened, and the multitude of the Gentiles running to the faith through Paul, the doctor of the Gentiles and their special apostle—or rather through the Lord himself, who spoke through the Apostle—such a sentence was revoked. For he says to the Corinthians: "Whatever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience sake" (1 Cor. X, 25). Likewise: "All things are clean to the clean" (Tit. I, 15). And elsewhere: "I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus; who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" (Rom. XIV, 4).
A Indeed, he who eats with a pure conscience, receives what he eats from the Lord. The same apostle says: "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink" (Col. II, 16). As if to say: let no man judge you, as the Jews do, by distinguishing between those things among which you live in the matter of food, and the rest that the same apostle added. To the same effect is what the Lord says in the Gospel: "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man" (Matt. XV, 11), etc. The Lord, wishing to declare this to the first pastor in that heavenly and admirable vision, because the same pastor of the Church, Peter, saw a sheet let down from heaven to earth by its four corners (Acts X, 15), after the astonishment he felt, said to him: "What God hath cleansed, do not thou call common."
With these authorities and many reasons, the Roman Church of God, supported by such, uses these liberties in place and time without offense and without conscience of sin. But the Church of the Greeks, for whom all things have been turned into scandal and offense of conscience, abuses such things not without the stain of guilt. Which of the Latins uses pork blood with such zeal and attention as the people of the Greeks? And we have seen with our own eyes, he esteems it as the highest of delicacies: how often, when that blood is prepared—which, as we believe, they call *cipuneti* in their feasts—do they gorge themselves like the most shameless dogs? Furthermore, do they not use animals that have been stifled and caught by a beast, when they eat hunted game—which are strangled by the teeth of dogs—and of other animals, and also of birds that have been caught by a snare or net, and whose heads are twisted off by the hands of fowlers, and do they not devour them so diligently and curiously? Whence then is such madness in them, that they approve in themselves what they perform with such great zeal, while in others they reprove, mock, and condemn it? May their deceitful lips be silenced at last, and may their impudent foreheads now fall in confusion.
Following this is the sixty-fourth canon, which begins thus: "If any cleric be found fasting on the Lord's day, or on the Sabbath day, except one," etc. B I answer: This canon is not of the apostles, but of certain men who, for the reason assigned above, promulgated such an opinion. For if it were an apostolic canon, it would certainly have existed in the time of Pope Sylvester. However, it is certain that in his days a question was raised by the Greeks—namely, that they were not fasting on the Sabbath, except for one—alleging certain things from the Law of Moses, as is contained in the Life of that same Pope; but when he would not grant consent, Pope Sylvester said: "If every Lord's day of the resurrection is to be observed for the joy of Christians, and every Sabbath day of the burial is to be deputed for the exercise of the Jews." C For the disciples of the Lord did not have joy on the Sabbath, suspecting it was the burial, and there was joy among the feasting Jews; but for the fasting disciples, sadness prevailed. Let us therefore be sad with those who were sad concerning the burial of the Lord, if we wish to rejoice with them concerning the Lord's resurrection. For it is not right that we should observe distinctions of foods and the ceremonies of the Jews in the Jewish manner."
When the blessed Sylvester said these things and similar ones, that tradition of the apostolic see pleased certain Oriental assemblies. But they chose rather to celebrate the Sabbath with the Jews. Concordant with this opinion, the blessed Pope Innocent says: "Most evident reason demonstrates that one must fast on the Sabbath. For if we do not fast on the Lord's day out of reverence for the Lord, we ought not to omit the Sabbath, which seems to be included between the sadness and the joy of that time. For it is certain that the apostles were in sadness during those two days, and hid themselves for fear of the Jews. That this is not in doubt, and that they fasted during those two days in such a way that the tradition of the Church holds that sacraments are not to be celebrated at all on those two days. This form is to be held for each week. We speak here according to the manner that was then, for which reason the commemoration of that day is always to be celebrated." But if they think that one must fast only once, and on one Sabbath; then the Lord's day and the sixth feria (Friday) must also be celebrated only once at Easter. But if the image of the Lord's day or the sixth feria is to be renewed every week, it is that of a deranged mind to act with the custom of two days, with the Sabbath omitted, since it has no different cause from the sixth feria, on which the Lord suffered, and when He was also among the dead, so that on the third day, rising, He might restore joy after the sadness preceding the two days. Therefore, we do not deny that the sixth feria is to be fasted; but we say that this must be done also on the Sabbath, because both days imposed sadness on the apostles and on those who followed Christ, who, exhilarated on the Lord's Day, not only wished it to be festive, but also said that it was to be frequented every week.
D Therefore, that we may return to our first word: this canon, which the Greeks lie and claim is of the apostles, if it had existed at that time, would have sufficed for them as an aid to their petition or opinion, this apostolic decree, which according to them remains immutable; especially if the apostles of God had immutably commanded it to be kept by all. What then was the cause that sealed their lips, so that they did not have recourse in those days to the certainty of an apostolic sanction? There was none at all: because it had not been issued, nor could it be called a canon, because it did not exist.
A
The eightieth canon, they say, which begins thus: "A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, [who is] in military service," etc., is once again shouted out against the Latins. I reply that if the reader examines the force of the canon, even supposing it to be an apostolic one, it does not stand against the Latins. Because our bishops are not "in military service" in the way that the canon intends; nor has any one of them ever held, or does he hold, both powers in such a way that he is, or is called, both king and priest at the same time, except in a spiritual sense, just as the Scripture says: "You have made us a kingdom and priesthood unto our God." If, however, they consider as "military service" that very exhortation which the Church makes to a secular prince, or the authority that it gives, or the aid that it provides against the persecutions of the Church herself and against wicked men, who is not offended by this? Does not the Church of the Greeks give a crown to the emperors to be worn as a sign of splendor, and a sword to be held in the hand to exercise the vengeance of blood? Do they not go with them into the exercise of war, and present their sacraments to those about to fight, and pray for them generally and specifically in the secret of the Mass? Just as it is written: "Remember, O Lord, thy most pious and faithful emperors," etc. And a little later: "Strengthen their arms, exalt their right hand, confirm their kingdom, subject to them all barbarian nations, and those who desire wars," etc. Nor do we deny that both swords exist, the material, that is, and the spiritual. But one it grants to the soldier to be drawn at the nod of the priest, while the other it has reserved for itself. "Behold," say the apostles in the Gospel, "two swords here." And again, speaking of the material one, the Lord says: "Convert thy sword into its scabbard." By saying "thy," he signifies the material sword with which he had struck the servant of the prince of the priests. But concerning the spiritual one, it comes into doubt for no one, since the same Lord granted to Peter the power of binding and loosing by the pinnacle of a certain specialty. Both swords, therefore, are delivered to the Church. But from the Church herself one is to be exercised; the other, as we said above, is to be wielded on behalf of the Church by the hand of the secular prince. In what then does the Church sin, if she uses her own right granted to her by the Lord? Both swords, therefore, B as has been said, pertain to the Church, and she has disposed of both, as seems best to her, for the protection of the faithful and the preservation of the republic.
Which dignity or power Constantine, the first of Christian emperors, foreseeing in the spirit as soon as he was converted to the faith, conferred upon the same Church in a free manner, as is more fully expressed above in the fourth distinction of this work. For although some of the prelates, on account of lands and regions which they retain for the uses of the Church, are called dukes, counts, or marquesses, and sometimes proceed on an expedition, they nevertheless always keep their hands clean from the blood of sinners. For they do not fight personally, but by standing by for the faithful who are to fight against the unjust, they strive by deed and work; they render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and they exhibit to God the things that are God’s.
Concerning those who have been married twice, and beyond, a brief response is incumbent upon us. For either those who decreed such things wished them to be understood of clerics and not of laymen: or, if it is to be understood of all, they are speaking only of those who, while the first [spouse] is living, contract a second and a third: or certainly, as some of them have indeed interpreted it, this is not to be understood of the marital union, but of the blessing of those marrying and the solemnity of the nuptials, which is observed differently toward widows than toward virgins. To which opinion even the letter of the canon seems to concur, which says: "The fathers have been silent regarding nuptials celebrated multiple times," etc. But if, as the Greeks suppose, the words of the canon are to be understood simply and nakedly—for example, so that it is said that it is not lawful for a man to contract [marriage] with a second [woman] after his first wife is dead—we say that since this is against the doctrine of the Apostle, and the salvation of the infirm, it should by no means be heard. For the Apostle says to the Corinthians: "A woman is bound by the law, as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty: let her marry to whom she will; only in the Lord." The Lord also in the Gospel did not rebuke the woman who had seven husbands in succession for the purpose of raising up offspring, for such a union so often repeated, but only the erroneous opinion of those who hoped for carnal marriages to come in the kingdom of the just. Likewise, the Samaritan woman, who had had many husbands, speaking by the well, he reproved her regarding that one alone, whom he divinely perceived not to be her husband. For he says: "Thou hast had five husbands, and he whom thou now hast, is not thy husband." To be joined therefore multiple times in succession is not forbidden, but permitted; even the status of such persons is not to be condemned, but tolerated, since it can be forbidden by no man, which we perceive to have been granted by the grace of the Spirit for the salvation of the infirm.
D Again it is asked by the Greeks: Can a dispensation of any council take place? If they say no, who then of the Greeks will be saved, given that they are in the Catholic or orthodox faith, truly obedient [to it]? Do they not come against this canon, and those placed above, every day? If they say yes; but, if some prelate—and much more the supreme pontiff, who holds the power of plenitude from Christ, through the mediation of Peter the Apostle—can do so. Concerning which, inquire above in the fourth distinction. Meanwhile, we advise the Greeks to buy the gold of wisdom from the Roman Church, which they despise, so that they may become rich, and apply an eye-salve to their darkened eyes: so that looking clearly into the mirror of the sacred Eloquence, they may recognize the Roman Church, which is the head of all Churches, and moreover their teacher: because she finds nothing in the evangelical and apostolic writings, and even in those of the doctors, to the contrary, which, interpretationally or dispensatorily according to the statutes...
A of the holy Fathers, in the unity of the Spirit, is not consistent.
Distinguishing, therefore, between those things which admit of dispensation and those which are otherwise, we say that there are precepts of the first necessity, which assimilate the soul to God, such as the precepts of the Decalogue; and these do not admit of dispensation. There are also precepts of the second necessity, as that one may be joined to one, and these have sometimes been dispensed with, as is evident in the patriarch Abraham, and Jacob, David, and other saints, who were joined to many. There are also precepts of the third necessity, such as voluntary vows, and this is fourfold: continence, religion, abstinence, and pilgrimage. The first two do not admit of dispensation; the other two do, since they are equipollent. Furthermore, there are precepts of the fourth necessity, such as the institutions of prelates; and these admit of dispensation, as often and whenever it seems expedient for a useful and necessary cause.
These things being held, and duly understood, the solution to many questions that have not yet been asked is plain. But concerning those which follow, and concerning menstruous women, and those who enter the choir, because of their baseness we do not wish to give a hearing: except only concerning the patriarch of Constantinople, who, consulting his own pride, caused many canons of such ambition to be forged, so that he might appear a prelate over all prelates. He calls himself oecumenical patriarch, that is, a universal patriarch: and although in the fourth distinction of this work it has been sufficiently disputed, yet we shall repeat a few things, in detestation and defamation of this proud name.
B Canon [49] of ambition of the said see was issued in the second synod, secretly from the supreme pontiff, as Master Hugo Etherianus reports, a man certainly wise and skilled in both languages. The response is above, in the second synod at the end. And because it could not and ought not to have been done, by that very fact it stirred up no small scandal and discord between the Greeks and the Latins, up to the times of Pope Vigilius. Nevertheless, he gave no favor to the said canon, as far as we know, even granting that he could have given assent to the prejudice of his predecessors. Meanwhile, after the Ephesian [council], the fourth synod is celebrated in the city of Chalcedon: in which, truly, Anatolius, the prelate of the royal city, acted sufficiently for the primacy of his priesthood. And a canon was made from it. But because the legates D of Leo the First manfully resisted, he petitioned the whole council for himself, and the emperor separately, and also the said Anatolius [petitioned] the said Leo humbly for the confirmation of the said canon. But when all prayers fell in vain, the said canon remained infirm and useless in law, even if not in fact, as is contained above in the fourth distinction and in the fourth synod. For, just as the aforementioned proud Anatolius, gradually and secretly seizing the sees of others, dared to add them to his own pontificate; so also in the synod which they call the sixth, which is said to have been surreptitiously obtained, they likewise C renewed the canon. Therefore, to this day, the Church of the Greeks possesses, holds, and uses what is not granted, as is evident. For who in the pontificate of the Roman see could strip himself of his own power and give it to another? So that there might be two heads in one body, namely in the Church of God; a thing truly monstrous.
Item: If they had [it] in law by force of the constitution made in the second synod, what necessity was there to repeat it in the fourth? And, if the Greeks obtained their proposal in the fourth, why did they repeat the same thing again in the sixth synod, which was after much time? There was no other [reason], except that their evil conscience urged them, because they were able to see, and to understand through the councils, that no canon obtains any vigor or firmness, unless it obtains the favor and assent of the supreme Pontiff. Concerning which [we spoke] above in the fourth distinction. Whence, rejecting this canon as useless and surreptitiously intruded, we say, just as [we do] of all those others who assert that the Roman pontiff is not the head of the universal Church, that they walk by the way of condemnation or perdition and are of the number of the schismatics Core, Dathan, and Abiron, who were swallowed by the earth as a sign of eternal damnation.
Concerning the celebration of the Mass in Lent, and certain other things, we do not respond, as much because they are frivolous as because they were fabricated in the surreptitious synod of Trullo in a similar way. But if they object to us that decree of the sixth synod, which Pope Adrian approved: Because in it it is decreed, etc. and that of Innocent, Renovantes, etc. We respond that those admit of their own proper and catholic interpretation, and not according to the depraved understanding of the Greeks. But other matters we leave to the discussion of jurists and to judgment.
(50) At the time when the most victorious emperor Constantine, surnamed Monomachus, was managing the empire with perspicacity in its dignities, there was a certain Michael, patriarch of the Constantinopolitan see, most foolish in his acts and intellect, who, just as his words attest, became known to all as a heresiarch rather than a patriarch. This man, driven by the evil persuasion of his heart, nefariously defamed the Eucharist of the holy Roman see, reasoning with himself that the sacrifice of the Greeks was better than that of the Latins, for the reason that as they had received from the Apostles, they sacrifice unleavened bread. Meanwhile, while the aforementioned patriarch, as the contents of his pamphlet assert, was attempting to argue against the sacrifice of the Latins, the most holy Pope Leo IX hearing this, according to his custom, sent to eradicate the nefarious alteration: the lord Stephen, the most religious chancellor, a man who, third after him, stood as the Roman Pontiff and bishop of the honest see, and with them Peter, master of Melfi, and others learned with their documents. Who, [having arrived in] the city of Constantinople, [interrogated those] who had excerpted the above from the books of Etherianus.
A And it came to pass that a most stupendous miracle was performed. The marble threshold of the church of the same size was dissolved; and immediately such a disaster followed, that within a few days sixty thousand Greeks died, and not one of any other nation. Meanwhile, for three days there were immeasurable lightnings, and thunders, and a multitude of rains and hailstorms.
These things, indeed, were done in the year from the Incarnation of the Lord one thousand and fifty-five, in the eighth indiction. Which I, Pantaleon, since I was there in Constantinople where this took place, have for this reason recorded as a memorial, so that the institution of the Latin serenity might be clear to the readers, and that no one might dare to presume such things.
THE NARRATION OF THE DIACON AND CHARTOPHYLAX OF THE GREAT CHURCH, PANTALEON,
ON THE MIRACLES OF THE GREATEST ARCHANGEL MICHAEL
I. B Great and many and various are the concepts, gifts, and graces of your incorporeal and magnificent archangelic virtue and dignity, O most glorious Michael, prince of the host, and [they are] truly sublime and manifold regarding your material, and the form and state of a life devoid of matter. But the fleshy power of human speech is small and to be held of no account, narrow and destitute of skill, as it is a word that proceeds from our heart through corporeal instruments. How, therefore, shall we, O prince of the host of the omnipotent God, be able to attain to your dignity with praises, even if we strive to do so? What incorporeal voice, responding to your incorporeal intelligent order, shall we offer through material and corporeal lips? What sounds shall we use, which might signify your ineffable and inexplicable glory? The whole nature of those born of the earth truly hesitates to praise and celebrate you, as you are the prince of the supercelestial order. C For the locus of your divine beauty and splendor cannot be narrated or explained in words. For how has the knowledge of God become wonderful out of us! It has prevailed, and we shall not be able [to grasp]—as even the archangelic essence of your goodness and the infinite multitude of your power, from which arcane and divine things emanate to the faithful, cannot be apprehended or investigated by human thoughts.
II. But since the divine Eloquy says somewhere: *"That which we have learned, we preach; and that which we know, we announce,"* for this reason, setting aside the infinite greatness of your miracles, we strive to express with the colors of our words, and to narrate vividly, a few certain [miracles], suitably and conveniently collected from the utterances of the divine Spirit, and to pour forth the power of your terrible miracles, and to announce your wonders to those who are gathered today in faith at your divine feast, so that it may now be an intended argument of salvation for all who ardently hasten to it, O most great and preeminently admirable Michael, prince of the host of God. For today, like some most magnificent host, you call us all, as spiritual guests, to the banquet of your feast, which has arisen, [as it were, with] the sun...
A more luminously, which is placed at the beginnings of the world, and exists from end to end: in which all the hearts of the faithful are filled with the delicacies of miracles and the utility of the soul. But now also, as always, have mercy on our humility, you who are the lofty assessor of the kingdom of heaven, and arise for us with the splendors of your benign providence, you who have received benignity from the benign God, O benign Michael, prince of the host. You who are a select and luminous, signifying and splendid star of the glory of the sun. You who are the most brave fighter and champion and defender of those who love the Lord. You who provide and look forth, and aid and defend with your firm patronage those who invoke you and with great desire approach you in your divine and most venerable temple. Do you illuminate the intelligent eyes of our heart, so that we may understand, and with our mind apprehend and declare, as far as it may be possible, the miracles of your majesty. For through you, a copious supply of all goods is given by the omnipotent providence of God to those who hope in you without any doubt, and who betake themselves to the whole praising of you.
III. But thinking what, or using what words, shall we be first able to sufficiently show the infinite sea of divine providence and benignity? For it is necessary that all should be openly extolled, as far as it can be, toward the first good and that which primarily operates first. Principally, therefore, and openly and by duty, we must think in our mind, we who bear the figure and image of Him who has from Himself the power and dominion of the divine essence, which is that God alone is one, who because of His infinite goodness fashioned all things that are in heaven and on earth, as the divine Apostle says: whether visible or invisible, whether Thrones, Dominations, or B Powers, or Virtues, or Principalities, or Archangels, or Angels, or Seraphim, or Cherubim; and He Himself is before all things and all things consist in Him. Who also fashioned this varied created nature into the one harmony and complement of one world. Who alone is unbegotten and eternal. Who alone is without beginning, and into whom death and end do not fall. Who alone is of such a kind that He cannot be comprehended and investigated and seen. Who has an essence superior to every circumscription and comprehension. Who can suffer no mutation and alteration: and is an omnipotent nature, alien to ruin and death, a perennial fountain, and which is never exhausted, an abyss of mercies and goodness: which can in no way be exhausted of all divine gifts and graces: an unutterable sea of mercy: a most blessed and supreme beauty, and alone truly worthy to be loved. He is the efficient and imparting and bestowing cause of the universe, which is spoken of and understood, C and the first cause. This is He who, because of His essential and natural goodness alone, called into being those things which at one time were not, and established them, and brought all things to essence, and comprehends and contains them, directs and leads them, carrying them by the mere nod of His majesty and power.
IV. And first, indeed, conveniently and as the Theologian Gregory says, He agitated in His mind the angelic and celestial powers: and that which He agitated in His mind was a work complete by the Word, and perfect in the Spirit. And so, second splendors were formed, the ministers of the first splendor, whether they be intelligent spirits, or fire, as being devoid of matter and incorporeal, or some other nature, which one ought to reckon approaches as closely as possible to those things which have been said. I want, indeed, he says, to call them first immovable toward evil, and which have only the motion of good, as those which are around God, and are illuminated first by God, for those things which are here are of a secondary illumination. But he persuades me that I should consider them not as immovable, but difficult to move, who because of the splendor of Lucifer—who was made and is called darkness because of pride—and the powers which consist under him, are architects of vice, fugitives of the good, and conciliators for us. And so, indeed, he who is apprehended by intelligence, and because of these things, the world was constituted.
V. But when the first things were rightly established for Him, He agitated in His mind the second world, which is endowed with matter, and which is seen. And this indeed is that which is constituted and joined together from heaven and earth, and those things which are between them. But the Theologian calls Lucifer, him who defected from God and fought with Him and is insolent and boastful, the devil, from the voice of the prophet Isaiah, who deplores his fall, and says: "How did Lucifer, who rose in the morning, fall from heaven, and was crushed upon the earth?" For the divine David also says of him, to those who similarly had fallen away from divine charity, just as that wicked and malicious one who had defected: "And you shall fall as one of the princes." For the devil was a prince of one angelic order in the heavens, not the devil produced and made from the beginning, but good from the Good, and beautiful from the Beautiful, and who alone does good things, D the Maker of the universe. But finally, beyond the law of nature, and the decree and reason of divine justice, pricked by the goad of the desire for rule, he rebelled against the Creator, attempting to usurp for himself the kingdom and the glory. But with himself he also drew an infinite multitude of rebels, who accepted him as an ally of their own folly and malice. For because of this cause of his impious thought, he fell with a vehement impulse from the vaults of heaven, detestable. For as soon as the most wicked and most impious thought came into his mind, he was straightway crushed by the omnipotent Lord, who said: "I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven." But similarly, he also said concerning him through the prophet Ezekiel: "As soon as your heart was lifted up because of beauty...
A and you said in your thought, 'I am God': immediately from my holy mountain I cast you down through the Cherubim, and your knowledge perished with your beauty: and I will give you over to be ashes upon the earth before all who see you," meaning the faithful. Likewise, the Lord said in the divine Gospels: "Behold, I give you power to trample upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy."
VI. Now, some who are eager to learn ask whether he was cast out because Adam would not worship him. To say such a thing is the mark of the foolish and the senseless. The devil fell before Adam was created, just as the Fathers openly declare that all the angels were made before the heaven and the earth. Indeed, it is probable that the devil fell on the fourth day, B when God made the luminaries, as it is written in Job: "When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice, and celebrated him with hymns." For the angels were always praising the Lord, even if not silently; but then they celebrated him with a greater voice, as Scripture signaled, on account of the just fall of that wicked one who had defected. We must know, O beloved, from our writings that every chorus and order has a leader of the order who begins the melody. Thus also Dionysius, the most divine interpreter of the angelic orders, says concerning the holy angels: "It is not absurd that divine and celestial things are, as far as possible, assimilated to our material hierarchy in a sensible way." I have received from the ones above that we should understand Michael, the highly luminous and greatest leader of the army, as the leader of the order of the angelic chorus. C
The first miracle concerning the proud Satan and his unclean spirits.
VII. Here, therefore, Michael, the most faithful and most holy leader of the great army, the pious minister of the divine council, who by the Lord’s and the almighty divine command cast from the celestial vaults the rebellious and proud Satan with his unclean and malignant spirits, then launched an attack upon them and, celebrating a triumph over their malice, with all the hosts of angels gathered together, praised with a loud voice the God of all and the almighty Lord, leading the angelic flocks as if to remind them of their immutable state, and of the stability of the good things they possess, saying: "Let us attend"—just as if he were to say: "Those who had been created, and to whom it had befallen that the uncreated and invisible God produced them because of his natural goodness, what has happened to them, who until now were illuminated with us by divine splendors? Let us observe how suddenly they were changed into darkness on account of their arrogance and contempt for him who had made them. Let us recognize what fruits an inconsiderate will of free choice brings about, and let us stand immutably in fear, offering the divine service daily." But D as for the hymnody that would contain them, just as one who stood in the first place, with the Seraphim and all the divine and celestial powers together, he cried out with a loud voice that divine and never-to-cease glory of the omnipotent divinity, which is the beginning of light and is uniquely the Trinity, through the holy glorification: "Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of his glory." But the malignant devil, alienated from the divine and administrative glory of God, when he saw that terrestrial man was more honorable than any created thing, as one made by the Lord’s hands in his own image and likeness, determined with all his might to separate and snatch him away from the salutary precept of him who had made and honored him. For the malignant and wicked one, seeing himself in extreme ignominy, was greatly tormented; and since he could not be converted to God, he poured out his own wickedness upon the image of God and caused man to be subject to ruin and death, having cast him out of the divine and life-giving delights of paradise. And God set the Cherubim and the turning flame of the sword to guard paradise. But even though man had fallen in this way—having free will and having slipped from his good state—God did not despise him, but as one who is by nature kind and possesses an immense sea of goodness, he provided him with the great Michael, the leader of the army, like a most powerful weapon for preservation against the power of the devil, so that he might guard and defend man who had fallen, so that—just as he had fallen through ignorance—he might, through a more laborious manner of living and divine virtue, having engaged in battle, be crowned as a victor.
VII. Furthermore, Adam, instructed by the persuasions and admonitions of Michael the archangel, and tilling the earth with a mattock, and nourished frugally by sweat and labor, was no longer seduced by the enemy of man and the foe of God, nor did he suffer any other disturbance. For from that time on he held him in absolute hatred, deeply considering in his mind the prophetic words which still remained in him: "Do not let your foot be moved, and he who keeps you will not slumber," the angel. For from that time we believe that each of us has an angel as a leader of our soul, as the Lord says in the Gospels: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, who are the least: for their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." Similarly, the patriarch Jacob also says: "The angel who delivers me from all evils." He did not say: "Who delivered me," but: "Who delivers me." Furthermore, the angel of the Lord also delivered the blessed apostle Peter from the hand of Herod. For as soon as the human race was established, its angels were commanded to take care of it, and a good angel was allotted to each faithful person to compose his life and perfect his soul. But many demons wrestle with him to make him stray from the straight path. For the unclean demons...
are not the cares of the faithless, but of those who live piously: for them they feel envy, and carry on war against them. When, however, a faithful man walks in holiness and justice, the angel, who was given to guard him, rejoices. When, indeed, he has turned aside from the straight path, the good angel is sad, but demons exult. Therefore the great Basil also says: There are angels who, in both churches, describe those who pray and fast. See, O man, lest because of a small and brief pleasure you receive this loss, that an angel might not describe you.
IX. And among the faithful, as we have said before, one angel has been given by God to each one. But among the infidels, one angel has been allotted to each entire nation, as the Scripture says: "He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God" (Deut. xxxii, 8). And that he might guard the nation of the Jews, Michael was appointed, the great prince of the militia of God, inasmuch as they had believed in God. But another was prefect of the Persians, another of the Greeks, and so on in like manner. Moreover, the divine and great leader of the army, Michael, is the prince of all the heavenly powers. And he presides over and bears the care of the entire faithful nation: and again he comes before and preserves the faithful, who labor, as one who has been commanded by God to have a swift nature, and to have attained the speed of lightning, to traverse the entire earth and ether in a single moment. "For the angel," he says, "who walked before the camp of the children of Israel, departed" (Exod. xiv, 19). Scripture said in Joshua (v, 13) that this angel was the prince of the militia, Michael. For his name was openly declared in the prophet Daniel (x, 1) and (xii, 1). C
X. This, therefore, is the great and glorious prince of God's militia, Michael, whom, as is fitting, was in the old dispensation a minister, and in the new serves even more, in matters which are for salvation. For after the unbelieving Israelites had greatly angered and utterly abandoned the Lord God, and for that reason were utterly exterminated, and we who have believed from the nations were called, and the new Israel was made, denominated from Christ, and understanding Christ (for if you interpret Israel, it is a mind seeing God), then the good God also removed the divine prince of the militia, Michael, from the Jewish custom, and from that time established him for us, the chosen Christians, as the greatest defender and savior, with other lesser angels openly undertaking the care of other nations. For as the holy nation of Christians is more excellent than all others, so it is necessary that there should be a greater dignity of the archangel Michael, who takes care of the Christian race. For the essence of the angels does not have a difference, but rather an excellence of dignity. For He who takes care of all things, and is by nature benign, wishes all men to be saved.
XI. But when wretched men remained in their foolishness in error and the worship of idols, and by no means wished to understand what was proper, and to recognize the Maker from the magnitude and beauty of the things created by Him, that pious Abraham, when from created things he had understood the Creator in his mind, and had admired the workmanship of infinite power, and indeed took it very ill and was indignant at the foolish and the incredulous, who worshipped the created thing beyond the Creator, God spoke to him from heaven, saying: "Go forth out of thy land and from thy kindred and out of thy father's house, and come into the land, which I will show thee" (Gen. xii, 1). Then he appeared to him in the form of three angels. But D being received into hospitality by him at the oak of Mamre, He rendered him the reward of his hospitality in a clear manner, when he was already old, and though his wife Sarah was sterile, He gave him a pious son, Isaac, similar to him both in morals and in virtue. But after the son was born beyond hope, rendering his greatness of mind, and the faith and piety of his mind, more proven to all, He said to him again: "Take thy only begotten son, whom thou lovest, Isaac, and offer him to me for a sacrifice" (Gen. xxii, 2). He, however, as soon as it had been commanded to him, carried out the deed, and when he had bound Isaac, and had extended his hand which held the sword, now about to touch his throat, the angel of the Lord, Michael namely, restrained him, saying: "Lay not thy hand upon the son. For now I know, that thou fearest God; but look with thine eyes, and see the ram sent to thee bound, and offer it for Isaac thy son." But we believe that this angel, who said these things to the patriarch, was openly the prince of the militia, Michael. Indeed Jacob also, whom his brother Esau was pursuing, the prince of the militia liberated and saved. Who also, giving him courage not to fear him who was pursuing, wrestles with him in the night, and touches his thigh, almost saying: "If you have been able to wrestle with angels, why do you fear a man in whom destruction falls?" (Gen. xxxii, 28).
XIII. But when those who had descended from the race of the pious Abraham had multiplied, as the angel had promised him, and they were being treated badly in Egypt, God, who is by nature benign, had pity on them, and chose Moses His servant, and through him, the archangel Michael, He established him as the leader of the entire race of Abraham, that he might lead them out of the land of Egypt, and transfer them through the Red Sea as if through dry land, with the people hastening to the land promised to them, which flowed with milk and honey, with Michael the archangel preparing the way for him before him. But when he had arrived at the region of the Moabites, that he might cross through their borders, Balac the king of Moab resisted him, hindering him from crossing. The king Balac himself also summoned a certain venerable olden seer, by the name of Balaam, to curse the people of Moses, so that he might be defeated. But to Balaam journeying on the way, the angel of the Lord met him, Michael namely, the defender of the Israelites. When the ass of Balaam had seen him, it turned aside, and pressed the foot of Balaam against the wall, and the ass argued with him with a human voice, showing the terrible archangel.
A Balaam, however, when he had seen the radiance that shone forth from him, was greatly terrified and said: "Spare me, spare me, O Lord. For I have sinned involuntarily." But although Balaam had seen this vision, he did not turn back at once; rather, he went to king Balak, who had summoned him, in order to satisfy his desire. But both missed the mark. For when Balaam had stood on the highest place and had caught sight of the camp of Israel like cedars beside the waters, the seer, even against his will, uttered a prophetic blessing instead of a curse to the Israelite people, saying: "A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a man shall arise out of Israel and shall break the leaders of Moab, etc." But because of his evil and utterly execrable counsel, which he deserved, Balaam received the destruction of his adversaries.
XIV. That Michael was the prince of the Lord’s host who met Balaam and announced to him that he was the leader of the Jewish people, and that he preceded and led them forth, is openly shown by Scripture in the body of Moses, as the most divine apostle Jude, the brother of the Lord, said in his Catholic Epistle: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." But we know what the prince of the host, Michael, was disputing with the devil about. The enemy, the foe, and profane devil was attempting with supreme impudence, and was contending at the passing of Moses, who had contemplated God most highly, to bring it about that his body should be reduced under the power of death, so that no one might see a good sign B for the future of human nature. And therefore the dark Satan was saying to the most luminous prince of God’s host, Michael, that Moses had committed the slaughter of the Egyptian, and he was fabricating other slanders and accusations against him. Therefore, resisting the proud and boastful mind of the malignant one, the archangel Michael, contradicting him and answering now this, now that, to refute the things that were being said by him wickedly, at last, seeing his remarkable impudence, rebuked him, saying: "The Lord rebuke thee"; that is: "May God destroy thee, O devil." And immediately the wicked adversary vanished. For such is the power of Michael, who contemplates God, and this is what the dispute and contention was at the passing of the great Moses, when Michael, the prince of the host, who is the most eminent of the angelic powers, hid his body.
XV. Also, after the passing of the divine Moses, when Joshua, son of Nun, had divinely obtained command over the Israelite people and was leading them into the land of promise, and had drawn up a line of battle against the adversaries and was discussing the joining of battle, there appeared to him as a most valiant soldier the prince of the host, Michael, standing completely erect, with a joyful countenance and distinctive apparel, and a drawn sword was in his hand. Joshua, who was armed, approaching him C spoke bitterly, as is likely: "Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? For thy splendid and varied appearance incites me to question thee. Say unto me, therefore, quickly, before I attack thee with the edge of the sword. For it is not fitting that, having left the line of battle in jeopardy, I should proceed to speak with thee. For I think that thou art come to spy on us. But if thou hast come as a deserter, cast away this flashing sword of thine, and be quickly with us, and thou shalt be free from the destruction which threatens the impious city of Jericho. But if thou art one of ours, why dost thou stand alone outside the line of battle, which is engaged in the struggle? Tell me, however, most quickly, for I shall recognize thee from the Hebrew language." When Joshua, son of Nun, asked these things, Michael, the great leader of God’s hosts, answered him: "I am the chief captain of the hosts of the Lord, now I have come." And immediately, having cast down his arms, Joshua, son of Nun, fell to the ground, and worshipped him, saying: "Lord, Lord, what commandest Thou thy servant? For I also am Thy servant, just as my lord Moses. Thou also lead the army with me, strengthening me perpetually, as Thou didst him. For behold, I have courageously directed the line against the host, trusting in Thy invincible strengths, through which Thou didst cause the savage and monstrous Pharaoh with his whole army, with the axles of the chariots bound together, to be utterly overwhelmed by the sea: and those who hindered my lord Moses on the way by opposing him, the impious Moabites, Thou didst destroy to extinction. What dost Thou command Thy servant, Lord?" And the most holy prince of God’s host says to him: "Loose thy shoes from thy feet. For the place whereon thou standest D is holy." Which, when it had been done immediately, he commanded him to attack that city boldly, surrounded by seven walls and impregnable: and as soon as he had attacked it with seven priests blowing trumpets, he razed it to the ground miraculously, and burned it all with all its houses and riches, as one who offered it to the Lord as a consecrated gift and the first-fruits of the spoils. Afterwards, Joshua, son of Nun, thus consumed twenty-nine kings, besides Jericho, with their armies and cities, having no city, no base of war, no soldiers who had any skill in war, but by divine nod, and the aid of the greatest leader of all the heavenly powers.
XVI. For it was this prince of the host who even shot from behind at Goliath, and laid him prone, when he was struck by the divine sling of the parent of God, David. For unless the angel of the Lord had struck him from behind, he would have fallen supine, having received the wound upon his forehead.
XVII. The most high contemplator of God, the prophet Daniel, also sees this same greatest prince of the host, rebuking the wicked men who had acted madly against the chaste Susanna, and says to one of them: "The angel of God now waiteth, having received the sword from God, to cut thee in two." Furthermore, after it came into the mind of the parent of God and king David, the sin committed by him—
A it showed quickly that outstanding compunction and repentance, with which, weeping from the depth of his heart, he cried out: "I have sinned against the Lord." After the prophet Nathan saw that the angel, who had been standing ready, had withdrawn, he said to the divine David: "The Lord also has taken away thy sin; thou shalt not die," announcing to him the great and ineffable goodness of the benevolent God, and consoling him.
XVIII. But now, when the execrable Sennacherib, king of the Assyrians, had reduced many nations to slavery and had captured many fortified cities of Judea, he came and surrounded Jerusalem with very great forces, and set Rabshakeh, his most savage general, by the conduit of the upper pool; and he cried out in Hebrew to Hezekiah and to the Jews who were in the city, saying blasphemous and satanic words: "But thus saith the great king of the Assyrians to you: What is this confidence, B wherein ye trust, that ye say: In the Lord God we trust? Come out to my master, the powerful king Sennacherib, and ye shall live, and shall not die; and every man shall eat of his fig tree, and drink of his vine; and I will take you into my own land, and I will greatly glorify and magnify you. And do not listen to Hezekiah, for he decieveth you, saying: The Lord will deliver us. Have the gods of the nations delivered every one his own land out of the hand of the king of the Assyrians?" When Hezekiah had heard these things, he put on sackcloth, and entered into his house, and wept vehemently, saying: "O Lord God of Israel, who sittest upon the cherubim, and art surrounded in the circle of the heavens and art glorified, not silently, by the seraphim and by all the holy angels. C Thou art God alone in all the kingdoms of the earth. Thou hast made heaven and earth, and all things that are in them. Incline, O Lord, thy ear, and hear: open, O Lord, thy eyes, and see, and attend to the words of Sennacherib which he has sent, reproaching the living God. For in truth, O Lord, the kings of the Assyrians have laid waste the nations. And now, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, and all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God alone." And the angel of the Lord went out that night, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand. And when they rose in the morning, they found the bodies dead. And while the Assyrian enemy of God, Sennacherib, was turning back and fleeing, two of his sons killed him with the sword while he had remained led by no repentance. But whose was this stupendous, D glorious, and admirable feat and power? Was it not the power of Michael, the commander of the armies of the Lord Sabaoth, who led the host unseen, and in a moment of time openly cut down his adversaries without a sword, in aid and protection of his own, who placed their hope in the living God of vengeance, and who alone can save?
XIX. But the ungrateful Jews, and stupid, and incredulous, and ignorant, who were forgetful of very many divine benefits, after the slaughter of those most hostile foes by the hand of the angel, and their shameful flight, could not even then understand and recognize it, but said: "Our high hand has done all these wonders." Therefore, God delivered them entirely into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldeans, who even tore down all the walls of Jerusalem, burned the whole city and the house of the Lord, and, having captured them in war, took the holy vessels and the multitude of their riches, and led all to Babylon. And the Jews were serving in captivity with great fear under the Chaldeans, worshipping all their idols, except for the three holy youths and the prophet Daniel.
XX. For these alone were men of piety—even if they were taken into captivity as mere infants—always having the fear of God; not being led to worship gods which are not, along with the priests of their own race, the Scribes and Pharisees; nor did they fear that royal command. But, trusting in the living God who giveth salvation, when they had been led to the tyrant, they boldly said: "Be it known to thee, O king, that we do not worship thy gods, and we do not adore the golden image which thou hast set up." Then King Nebuchadnezzar, in anger and fury, cast Ananias, Azarias, and Misael into the furnace of burning fire. But the angel of God, namely Michael, descended into the furnace along with them; and the fire did not touch them at all, but the angel shook off the flame of the furnace, and the fire passed around, and burned all the men who had cast them in, that is, the king's ministers. Then the three, as if with one mouth, rejoicing, praised and blessed and glorified God alone. But the king heard them praising God in the middle of the furnace, and rising quickly, said to his magnates: "Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire, and the appearance of the fourth is like the Son of God?" Then, when the king had called them, they came forth unharmed. But when the divine youths had come out without any injury, the king adored before them and said: "Blessed be the Lord God of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, who sent his angel and delivered his youths out of the fire of the burning furnace." Then the king appointed them princes, and treated them with the greatest honor along with the prophet Daniel. Truly, the divine chanter David sings beautifully: "The angel of the Lord shall encamp round about them that fear him, and shall deliver them."
XXI. But God showed a similar miracle again, through his glorious archangel Michael, in his servant Daniel also, who was cast into the den of lions. For after other kings reigned after Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, most wise, was beloved by all, as one who interpreted dreams by God. But the Babylonians, moved by envy, rose up at that time against Cyrus, who was then reigning over them, as they had previously against Darius, and say to him: "O king, give us leave to put the Hebrew Daniel to death, because Bel our god...
broke in pieces, and killed the venerable dragon, and slew our priests and enchanters." But if you do not, we will kill you and your household for Judaizing. When the king truly saw that they were pressing him hard, being compelled, he delivered Daniel to them. They cast him into the lions' den, and he was there six days. There were seven lions in the den. But the archangel Michael closed the lions' mouths, and they did not harass Daniel, nor did they touch his body at all. But when the king arrived on the seventh day to mourn Daniel in the den, he found the seals which he had placed intact, and the den being open, he saw Daniel standing upright, and having his hands outstretched, and praising God, and saying: "Blessed art thou, O God, who hast sent thine angel, and closed the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me." Then the king, quickly glorifying God with joy, took Daniel out of the den unharmed, and worshipped him; but the men who had accused Daniel he cast into the lions' den. They had not even reached the bottom of the den before the lions attacked and devoured them, and ground all their bones as if into dust. This man, therefore, Daniel "of desires," showed us the most holy name of the archangel, which was called Michael, that is, "Leader of God's army," as one who received this mystery from another angel.
XXII. Furthermore, Habakkuk the prophet was also in Judæa. He had cooked a pottage and soaked bread for nourishment, and was going to take it to his reapers. The angel of the Lord took hold of Habakkuk by the crown of his head, and by the force of his spirit carried him from Judæa to Babylon with the lentil food; and the archangel brought him into the lions' den, without breaking the seals thereto. And Daniel, the servant of God, ate and was gladdened. And again, the same angel Michael immediately returned Habakkuk to his place, offering no impediment to his returning at that same hour and abundantly feeding his reapers with the same food. A Amazing is the swiftness of the divine archangel.
XXIII. With his most powerful impulse, by divine nod, he likewise again took up the divine prophet Ezekiel, as Ezekiel himself says in his prophecy: "And I saw, and behold, the likeness of a man from his loins, and downward fire: and from his loins and upward as the vision of electrum. He took me by the crown of my head in his spirit into the midst of heaven and earth, and brought me to Jerusalem."
XXIV. Why, also, the apostle Philip, whom the angel of my Lord likewise snatched and translated to Azotus, and the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians saw him no more, after he had received from him saving baptism.
XXV. My mind, however, is impelled, and my spirit is excited by the singular grace and power of the divine leader of the orders of the supernal powers, and leads me to tell just one of his miracles. All power of speech is overcome, gazing at the depth and multitude and excellence of his infinite and various and all-manner of miracles, and it shrinks from writing about them at all. For time itself will fail us, as the divine Apostle says, while we are telling them. For it is easier to measure the sea and count the stars than to count the greatest miracles which are worked upon us daily by the greatest incorporeal one. Therefore, out of his great and signal miracles, I will dare to tell you a few marvelous works. B
XXVI. In the time of the Emperor Michael and his mother Theodora, there was a certain man, Marcian by name, who from his tenderest years had been a candle-bearer in this venerable temple. For in that very divine and venerable and most beautiful archangelic temple, all who are tossed by the sea of every kind of disease, and who approach in faith, and drink the ointment flowing from his immaculate image, immediately obtain the healing which is hoped for. In this divine and religious temple, therefore, the aforementioned Marcian, the candle-bearer of the archangel, persevered assiduously until old age with great love and faith, nor had he ever required a physician at all; but as soon as he had occasionally fallen into that disease, he immediately fell down in the said temple of the leader of the ranks, Michael, and shortly returned healthy to his home, because of his total affection for him.
XXVII. When therefore a grave and clearly desperate disease had finally seized him, he lay in the lower part of the archangel's temple for some days with stable and firm trust in him. But when very many friends and physicians gathered to him, and said one thing and another regarding his cure, while he himself could not bear even to hear them talk about it at all, one of the physicians dared to apply what are called fomentations, and ordered those who were ministering to him that they should treat him before morning, whether he wanted it or not. But when the physician had prepared the fomentations, he returned home. That night, however, when Marcian had as it were gone out of himself and was in an ecstasy, just as this pious man also recounted, and the present argument shows the truth, he saw all the temple doors suddenly opened, and the basin, which stood there, and a terrible man with force as a rider having descended from heaven. But when he had descended from the horse onto the marble that was there, he entered the temple, accompanied by many, C as if dressed in the garment of a commander, and the entire temple was filled with an ineffable odor. But a little later, when he had approached Marcian's bed, he pretended to touch the things that were on the stool, and to snatch those which had been placed upon it for food and use; and when he had found in the dish the fomentations that have been mentioned, having taken them he brought them to Marcian, asking what these were for, and who it was that had dared to use them in his house. When he had answered with trembling, that terrible and glorious one said to his two attendants: "Take them away, and... D
as soon as his head is pierced—for he who despised me is there—cast him into it." And when he had dipped the tip of his finger into the candle, which was burning before the wonder-working image, he marked Marcian’s head with holy oil in the shape of a cross. Leaving the church, he mounted his horse again and was taken up to heaven, and immediately all the doors of the church were locked, so that he could not be seen. Marcian, however, affected by great fear and anxious in spirit until morning because of the terrible vision, summoned the priest of the church and told him everything. Then the priest, when he had asked what poultices had been prepared by the physician—and had found none—and had also observed Marcian’s head and seen the holy cross marked upon it by the holy oil, went away B dumbfounded as quickly as possible to the physician to tell him everything and to advise that he too should seek pardon from Michael, the leader of the orders, for the things he had committed.
XXVIII. When the priest arrived at the physician’s house, he found there an innumerable multitude and mourning that could not be suppressed, of his kinsmen and associates and friends: all of whom were weeping for his sudden and previously unobserved lethal disease, while he himself was lying in the midst of them, his whole face scorched, crying out heavily and yelling with a loud voice: "Have mercy on me, you who fear God. Cut open my head, Christians, for I cannot bear the pains." But after he heard from the priest the terrible words that he had heard from pious Marcian, the physician then realized that the plague was worthy of his audacity, and he immediately cried out bitterly: "I am the cause of this grievous death of mine: but take me up and carry me, and throw me into his holy temple, and if his mercy decrees anything, he shall do it to me, his unworthy servant." And carrying him, they brought him along with his bed. Marcian, however, when he had sensed the commotion, sat up; and when he had learned the cause, he examined himself and was found completely healthy. Then, quickly descending from his bed, he glorified God and his defender and lord and great physician and prince of the host, Michael; and having run out, he went to meet them and lifted the physician from the bed and carried him with his own hands along with the priest, and placed him before the holy altar, miserably weeping and confessing, so that the holy prince of the host might be propitious to him. And when Marcian had caused the oil to flow by itself from that holy image, he anointed the head of the suffering physician, and immediately that burning torment was put to flight, and the burning pustules of his face were extinguished, and he was made completely healthy as before, glorifying God and his holiest prince of the host, Michael. The physician remained thereafter, persevering and munificently offering in that same glorious archangelic temple, all the time of his life extolling God with praises and him who was swift to bring aid and to defend him, Michael, the prince of the host.
XXIX. And some indeed say that there are nine of their orders, in accordance with the Savior’s parable, which says: "If some woman having ten drachmas, if she shall lose one of them, does she not light a lamp and search for it, and when she has found it, she calls together her friends, saying: 'Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma which I had lost'." There are, however, nine orders of incorporeal beings, namely: Angels, Archangels, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Dominations, Thrones, Cherubim, Seraphim—and the tenth order is that of men. Some, however, say that there are ninety-nine parts of them: the hundredth, however, being that of men, in accordance with the parable of the hundred sheep, concerning which Christ says: "If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them goes astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go into the mountains, searching for that which is lost? And if it happens that he finds it, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine which did not go astray." For in truth we are they, brothers, who have wrongly fled and gone astray over the mountains and hills of wicked action and unbelief: whom the good and benign shepherd has not despised, but has sought, and carried upon his shoulder, and brought back into the number of the good and non-wandering flock.
Of the holy archangel Gabriel.
XXX. Let us therefore all praise the Lord, brothers, and let us at the same time extol his name, who does great things and things that cannot be investigated, glorious and admirable things of which there is no number, through the holiest Michael daily, both formerly and now, and here and elsewhere, and to many and to each one. For even if God has performed innumerable miracles of wonderful things through other holy, innumerable angels throughout the whole world, divine Scripture reveals only three precious and venerable names, of Michael and of Gabriel, and of the clearly to be worshipped Raphael. And that the holiest Michael indeed performed all these terrible miracles which have been placed together, is evident from the divine Scriptures. But the most divine Gabriel was sent by the omnipotent God and Father, at the time of the divine and benign descent to earth, as a kind of escort of the Word of God, to the holy Virgin, and He said: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee," and by this voice he drove away the most ancient and long-lasting distress of our first parent Eve, and filled all the earth with joy. But previously, to the sterile and most famous Anna also, who was imploring the Lord in her garden, he foretold that it would come to pass that from her would be born the parent of God. Moreover, he himself also said to the prophet Zacharias in the temple that it would come to pass in his old age that he would beget the Forerunner: at which time he also made him speechless as a punishment for his unbelief. The same most divine Gabriel was seen again by that same Zacharias in the holy of holies, [handing him] food from...
heaven, bringing it to the Mother of God. A Moreover, the shepherds at the birth of Christ also saw the same Gabriel, announcing to them—and to the whole world—great joy. Many other similar good, illustrious, and divine brothers were also initiated by him into divine mysteries. For through these two, I mean Michael and Gabriel, every good gift and every perfect benefit descends, which is sent down to earth from God Almighty. For these are the two greatest and equally important lamps of the Divinity, which is the principle of light, and is one and three; and they are the luminaries that do not set over the whole globe of the earth that is under heaven, the mystagogues of secrets, and those who introduce the mysteries of the future.